■MttUUnFiih 
iilliili'  ti 


■ 


■ 


■ 


.  . 


ONE  HUNDRED  AND  FOURTH 

General  Assembly  of  the  Presbyterian  Church, 

In  the  United  States  of  America, 

PORTLAND,  OREGON,  MAY,  1802. 


THE 

Presbyterian  Church  in  the  United  States  of  America 

AGAINST 

r 

The  Rev.  CHARLES  A.  BRIGGS,  D.D. 


RECORD  OF  THE  CASE. 


INCLUDING  THE  APPEAL  TO  THE  GENERAL  ASSEMBLY,  AND 
ALL  PAPERS  PERTAINING  TO  THE  CASE. 

FROM  THE  MINUTES  OF  THE  PRESBYTERY  OF 

NEW  YORK. 


The  Presbyterian  Church  in  the  United  States  of  America, 


Represented  by 


GEORGE  W.  F.  BIRCH,  D.D., 
JOSEPH  J.  LAMPE,  D.D., 
ROBERT  F.  SAMPLE,  D.D., 
JOHN  J.  STEVENSON, 

JOHN  J.  McCOOK, 


> 


PROSECUTING 

COMMITTEE, 


Appellant . 


0 


ONE  HUNDRED  AND  FOURTH 

General  Assembly  of  the  Presbyterian  Church, 

In  the  United  States  of  America, 

PORTLAND,  OREGON,  MAY,  1892. 


THE 

Presbyterian  Church  in  the  United  States  of  America 

against 

The  Rev.  CHARLES  A.  BRIGGS,  D.D. 


RECORD  OF  THE  CASE. 


INCLUDING  THE  APPEAL  TO  THE  GENERAL  ASSEMBLY,  AND 
ALL  PAPERS  PERTAINING  TO  THE  CASE. 

FROM  THE  MINUTES  OF  THE  PRESBYTERY  OF 

NEW  YORK. 


The  Presbyterian  Church  in  the  United  States  of  America, 


Represented  by 


GEORGE  W.  F.  BIRCH,  D.D., 
JOSEPH  J.  LAMPE,  D.D., 
ROBERT  F.  SAMPLE,  D.D., 
JOHN  J.  STEVENSON, 

JOHN  J.  McCOOK, 


PROSECUTING 

COMMITTEE, 

Appellant. 


PRESS  OF 
DOUGLAS  TAYLOR 
8  WARREN  ST, 
N.  Y. 


INDEX. 


PAGE. 

Appeal  to  General  Assembly* .  4 

Proceedings  in  the  Presbytery  of  New  York,  in  the  case .  24 

Dr.  Birch’s  resolution  to  consider  Dr.  Briggs’  Inaugural  Address .  24 

Dr.  Hastings’  proposed  overture  as  to  action  of  Presbytery  of  Chester -  25 

Dr.  Briggs’  protest  against  appointment  of  Committee  to  consider 

Inaugural  Address .  29 

Report  of  Committee  to  consider  the  Inaugural,  recommending  judicial 

investigation .  31 

Report  of  Minority  of  Committee  to  consider  the  Inaugural .  50 

Judicial  Investigation  ordered . - .  58 

Dr.  Briggs’  Notice  of  Protest  and  Complaint  to  Synod  against  Report  of 

Committee  to  consider  Inaugural  and  action  of  Presbytery  thereon . .  58 

Prosecuting  Committee  appointed .  58 

Dr.  Briggs  withdraws  Notice  of  Complaint  to  Synod .  59 

Prosecuting  Committee  reports  progress .  59 

Committee  appointed  to  answer  Dr.  Briggs’  protest  against  appointment 

of  Committee  to  consider  Inaugural .  59 

Dr.  George  Alexander’s  motion  to  suspend  the  order  of  the  day .  60 

Report  to  Presbytery  of  Prosecuting  Committee .  61 

Dr.  George  Alexander’s  substitute  for  recommendation  of  Prosecuting 

Committee .  64 

Recommendation  of  Prosecuting  Committee  adopted .  68 

Report  of  Committee  to  answer  Protest  of  Dr.  Briggs  against  appoint¬ 
ment  of  Committee  to  consider  Inaugural .  68 

Agreement  between  Dr.  Briggs  and  Prosecuting  Committee  as  to  date  of 

trial .  70 

Trial  arrangements .  7^ 

Service  on  Dr.  Briggs  of  Charges  and  Specifications  and  Citation .  *0 

Charges  and  Specifications  as  served  upon  Dr.  Briggs .  70 

Citation  to  Dr.  Briggs  to  appear  for  trial .  114 

Stenographer,  Official  appointment  of .  H4 

General  Rules  for  Judicatories  adopted .  115 

Dr.  Briggs  declines  to  have  Counsel .  H,:> 


INDEX. 


•  • 

11 

PAGE. 

115 

Dr.  Briggs  makes  return  to  Charges .  . . . 

Dr.  Briggs  files  objections  to  Charges . 

Dr.  Briggs’  Response  to  the  Charges  and  Specifications .  115 

Moderator  decides  Committee  is  a  Committee  of  Prosecution  representing 
the  Presbyterian  Church  in  the  United  States  of  America  and  is  an 

original  party . 

Moderator’s  decision  as  to  status  of  Prosecuting  Committee  appealed  from 

and  sustained  by  the  House . 

Dr.  Henry  Van  Dyke’s  Notice  of  Protest,  Dr.  Francis  Brown’s  Notice  of 
Complaint  and  Dr.  Briggs’ Notice  of  Appeal  against  decision  of  Mod- 

erator  as  to  status  of  Prosecuting  Committee  and  action  of  the  .73$ 

146 

Presbytery  thereon . 

Dr.  Henry  Yan  Dyke’s  motion  to  dismiss  the  case .  146 

Committee  appointed  to  answer  Dr.  Yan  Dyke’s  protest .  146 

Final  Judgment  of  Presbytery  dismissing  the  case .  147 

147 

Yote  on  Final  Judgment . 

Prosecuting  Committee  give  Notice  of  Appeal .  149 

Yote  of  thanks  to  Prosecuting  Committee .  149 

Dr.  Francis  Brown  gives  notice  of  complaint  against  decision  of  Presby¬ 
tery  to  enter  upon  its  records  a  motion  by  Elder  Woodbury,  which 
was  lost,  to  discharge  the  Prosecuting  Committee .  149 

Stenographer  s  Minutes  of  the  trial .  1^^ 

Dr.  Francis  Brown’s  Notice  of  Complain  1 .  257 

Dr.  Francis  Brown’s  Notice  of  Complaint  II .  259 

Report  of  Committee  appointed  to  answer  protest  of  Dr.  Yan  Dyke  as  to 
ruling  of  Moderator  and  action  of  Presbytery  as  to  status  of  Pros¬ 
ecuting  Committee . 

Certificate  of  stated  Clerk  authenticating  proceedings .  270 

Notice  to  Dr.  Briggs  that  case  would  be  brought  on  for  hearing  before 
next  General  Assembly  and  reply . .  and  272 


New  York,  November  13th,  1891. 


To  the  Rev.  Samuel  D.  Alexander,  D.D., 

Stated  Clerk  of  the  Presbytery  of  New  York. 


Dear  Sir: 

The  Prosecuting  Committee,  representing  the  Presby¬ 
terian  Church  in  the  United  States  of  America,  in  the  case 
of  the  Presbyterian  Church  against  the  Rev.  Charles 
A.  Briggs,  D.D.,  hereby  gives  written  notice  of  appeal, 
with  specifications  of  the  errors  alleged  in  the  said  case, 
from  the  decision  and  final  judgment  of  the  said  Presby¬ 
tery  of  New  York  in  dismissing  the  said  case,  as  made  at 
its  meeting  on  the  fourth  day  of  November,  A.D.  1891,  to 
the  General  Assembly  of  the  Presbyterian  Church  in  the 
United  States  of  America,  to  meet,  as  may  be  hereafter 
determined,  at  either  Portland,  Oregon,  or  Kansas  City, 
Missouri,  on  the  third  Thursday  of  May,  A.D.  1892.  The 
grounds  of  this  appeal  and  the  specifications  of  the  errors 
alleged  are  hereto  attached  and  made  a  part  of  this  notice. 

By  order  and  in  behalf  of  the  Prosecuting  Committee, 
Appellant, 


George  W.  F.  Birch, 

Chairman. 


APPEAL. 


New  York,  November  13th,  1891. 

To  the  Venerable  the  General  Assembly  of  the 
Presbyterian  Church  in  the  United  States  of 
America,  Greeting: 

The  undersigned,  the  Prosecuting  Committee  appointed 
by  the  Presbytery  of  New  York,  to  represent  the  Presby¬ 
terian  Church  in  the  United  States  of  America,  in  the  case 
of  the  said  Presbyterian  Church  against  the  Rev.  Charles 
A.  Briggs,  D.D.,  believing  that  the  trial  of  the  said  Dr. 
Briggs  is  one  of  the  most  important  in  the  history  of  the 
Presbyterian  Church,  by  reason  of  the  great  and  danger¬ 
ous  errors  contained  in  the  Address  of  the  said  Dr.  Briggs 
at  his  inauguration  as  Professor  of  Biblical  Theology  in 
Union  Theological  Seminary,  delivered  on  the  20th  day  of 
January,  1891,  upon  which  Inaugural  Address  charges 
and  specifications  were  based  and  tabled  and  prosecution 
inaugurated  by  the  Presbytery  of  New  York  in  the  name 
of  the  Presbyterian  Church  in  the  United  States  of 
America ;  and  believing  that  the  distinct  and  definite  con¬ 
demnation  of  those  errors  by  the  Supreme  Judicatory  of 
the  said  Presbyterian  Church  is  necessary  in  order  to  pre¬ 
vent  their  spread  and  influence  in  the  denomination ;  and, 
while  having  the  highest  respect  for  the  Synod  of  New 
York,  believing  that  a  special  responsibility  rests  upon 
the  General  Assembly  in  cases  that  affect  the  doctrine  of 
the  Church,  and  concern  the  promotion  of  truth  and 
holiness  through  all  the  Churches  under  its  care,  as  set 
forth  in  Chapter  XII.,  Sections  4  and  5,  of  the  Form  of 


\ 


5 


Government;  and  in  view  of  the  desirableness  of  the 
speediest  settlement  of  this  most  important  question,  do 
hereby  appeal  to  and  request  your  Venerable  Body  to 
enter  immediately  upon  the  consideration  and  judicial 
investigation  of  the  appeal,  hereby  presented,  and  to 
finally  determine  the  case,  so  as  to  secure  the  purity  and 
the  peace  of  the  Church  at  the  earliest  possible  day. 

And  in  the  further  prosecution  of  the  case  on  the  part 
of  the  said  Prosecuting  Committee,  the  said  Committee, 
the  Appellant,  respectfully  sets  forth : 

That  on  the  thirteenth  day  of  April,  A.D.  1891,  the 
Presbytery  of  New  York  appointed  a  Committee  to  con¬ 
sider  the  Inaugural  Address  of  the  Rev.  Charles  A.  Briggs, 
D.D.,  in  its  relation  to  the  Confession  of  Faith,  and  that 
on  May  eleventh,  A.D.  1891,  the  said  Committee  pre¬ 
sented  to  said  Presbytery  a  report  which  is  hereby  referred 
to  as  a  part  of  the  record  of  the  proceedings  which  culmi¬ 
nated  in  the  decision  and  final  judgment  from  which  this 
appeal  is  taken. 

The  said  report  was  accepted,  and  its  recommendation 
“  that  the  Presbytery  enter  at  once  upon  the  judicial 
investigation  of  the  case”  was  adopted  by  the  said 
Presbytery,  and  thereupon  it  was  “  Resolved ,  That  a 
Committee  be  appointed  to  arrange  and  prepare  the  neces¬ 
sary  proceedings  appropriate  in  the  case  of  Dr.  Briggs  ?  ’ ; 

«  and  the  Rev.  G.  W.  F.  Birch,  D.D.,  Rev.  Joseph  J. 
Lampe,  D.D.,  Rev.  Robert  F.  Sample,  D.D.,  and  Ruling 
Elders  John  J.  Stevenson  and  John  J.  McCook  were 
appointed  such  Committee  in  conformity  with  the  pro¬ 
visions  of  Section  11  of  the  Book  of  Discipline. 

That  after  the  initiation  of  the  prosecution  by  the  said 
Judicatory,  the  Presbytery  of  New  York,  as  above  recited, 
the  said  Prosecuting  Committee  entered  upon  its  duties. 

That  in  compliance  with  the  provisions  of  Section  10  of 
the  Book  of  Discipline,  the  Presbyterian  Church  in  the 


6 


United  States  of  America  became  an  original  party  in  the 
case,  and  was  represented  by  the  said  Prosecuting  Com¬ 
mittee,  which  said  Committee,  under  Section  11  of  the 
Book  of  Discipline,  was  charged  with  the  duty  of  conduct¬ 
ing  the  prosecution  in  all  its  stages  in  whatever  judica¬ 
tory,  until  the  final  issue  be  reached ;  and  at  a  meeting  of 
the  said  Presbytery,  held  on  the  eighth  day  of  June,  A.D. 
1891,  the  said  Prosecuting  Committee  reported  progress, 
and  informed  the  said  Presbytery  that  charges  and  speci¬ 
fications  would  be  tabled  by  the  said  Committee  at  the 
meeting  of  the  Presbytery  to  be  held  in  October,  and  the 
said  Presbytery  accepted  the  said  report  of  progress. 

That  at  the  meeting  of  said  Presbytery,  held  on  the 
fifth  day  of  October,  A.D.  1891,  the  said  Prosecuting 
Committee  presented  a  report  which  is  hereby  referred  to 
as  a  part  of  the  record  of  the  proceedings  which  cul¬ 
minated  in  the  decision  and  final  judgment  from  which 
this  appeal  is  taken.  That  the  said  Presbytery  accepted 
said  report  and  adopted  its  recommendations,  and  the 
charges  and  specifications  in  the  case  of  the  Presbyterian 
Church  in  the  United  States  of  America  against  the  Rev. 
Charles  A.  Briggs,  D.D.,  contained  in  the  said  report, 
were  read  in  the  presence  of  the  Judicatory,  and  were 
served  by  the  Moderator  upon  the  said  Rev.  Charles  A 
Briggs,  D.D.,  together  with  a  citation,  citing  him  to 
appear  and  plead  to  the  said  charges  and  specifications  at 
an  adjourned  meeting  of  the  said  Presbytery,  to  be  held 
on  November  fourth,  A.D.  1891. 

That  after  said  report  was  presented  to  the  said  Presby¬ 
tery  and  the  charges  and  specifications  therein  contained 
had  been  read  and  pending  action  upon  said  report,  the 
Presbytery  entertained  a  motion  to  arrest  the  judicial 
proceedings  and  to  discharge  the  Committee  from  further 
consideration  of  the  case  as  follows  : 

“  Whereas ,  the  Presbytery  of  New  York,  at  its  meeting 


7 


in  May  last,  on  account  of  utterances  contained  in  an  inau¬ 
gural  address  delivered  January  20,  1891,  appointed  a 
Committee  to  formulate  charges  against  the  author  of  that 
address,  Rev.  Charles  A.  Briggs,  D.D.,  and,  whereas, 
since  that  action  was  taken,  the  accused  has  supplemented 
those  utterances  by  responding  to  certain  categorical  ques¬ 
tions.  *  *  * 

“  Therefore ,  Resolved ,  that  Presbytery,  without  pro¬ 
nouncing  on  the  sufficiency  of  these  later  declarations  to 
cover  all  the  points  concerning  which  the  accused  has  been 
called  in  question,  with  hearty  appreciation  of  the  faithful 
labors  of  the  Committee,  deems  it  expedient  to  arrest  the 
judicial  proceedings  at  this  point,  and  hereby  discharges 
the  Committee  from  further  consideration  of  the  case.” 

On  the  aforesaid  motion  to  dismiss  the  case  as  expressed 
specifically  in  the  words  “  to  arrest  the  judicial  proceed¬ 
ings  5  ’  and  ‘  ‘  hereby  discharges  the  Committee  from  further 
consideration  of  the  case, 5  ’  the  Presbytery  by  a  yea  and 
nay  vote  refused  to  adopt  the  above  resolution  and  to  dis¬ 
miss  the  case. 

That  on  the  said  fifth  day  of  October,  A.D.  1891,  the 
said  Presbytery  adjourned  to  meet  on  the  fourth  day  of 
November,  A. I).  1891,  the  day  upon  which  the  said  cita¬ 
tion  was  made  returnable,  and  that  at  said  adjourned  meet¬ 
ing  on  the  fourth  day  of  November,  A.D.  1891,  the  said 
Presbytery  was  charged  as  a  Judicatory  in  accordance 
with  Standing  Rule  Number  XL.  of  General  Rules  for 
Judicatories,  and  thereupon  the  said  Presbytery  proceeded 
in  the  case  of  the  Presbyterian  Church  in  the  United 
States  of  America  against  the  Rev.  Charles  A.  Briggs,  D.D., 
as  recorded  in  the  minutes  of  the  meeting  of  the  said 
Presbytery  on  said  fourth  day  of  November,  A.D.  1891, 
which  minutes  are  hereby  referred  to  as  a  part  of  the 
record  of  the  proceedings  which  culminated  in  the  decision 
and  final  judgment  from  which  this  appeal  is  taken. 


8 


That  on  said  November  fourth,  A.  D.  1891,  the  said  Dr. 
Briggs  presented  a  paper  purporting  to  be  objections  to 
the  sufficiency  of  the  said  charges  and  specifications  in 
form  and  legal  effect,  and  that  said  paper  was  largely  an 
answer  to  said  charges  or  an  argument  upon  the  merits 
of  the  case,  and  was  denominated  by  the  said  Dr.  Briggs 
himself,  a  ‘  ‘  Response  to  the  Charges  and  Specifications 
submitted  to  the  Presbytery  of  New  York,  by  Prof. 
Charles  Augustus  Briggs,  D.D.,”  and  that  the  said  Pres¬ 
bytery  thereupon  permitted  members  of  the  said  Presby¬ 
tery  to  discuss  the  merits  of  the  main  question  on  behalf 
of  the  accused  before  and  without  permitting  the  Prose¬ 
cuting  Committee  to  be  heard  on  the  merits  of  the  case. 

That  a  question  as  to  the  status  of  the  Prosecuting  Com¬ 
mittee  was  raised,  and  the  Moderator  decided  that  the 
Committee  was  properly  a  Committee  of  Prosecution  in 
view  of  the  previous  action  of  the  Presbytery,  and  was  in 
the  house  as  an  original  party  under  the  provisions  of 
Section  10  of  the  Book  of  Discipline.  That  an  appeal  was 
taken  from  the  decision  of  the  Moderator,  the  question 
was  divided,  and  the  Moderator  was  sustained  in  the  point, 
that  the  Committee  was  in  the  house  as  a  properly 
appointed  Committee  of  Prosecution,  and  also  sustained 
in  the  point  that  the  Committee,  as  representing  the  Pres¬ 
byterian  Church  in  the  United  States  of  America,  was  an 
original  party  in  the  case. 

That  on  said  November  fourth,  A.D.  1891,  the  said 
Presbytery  made  and  entered  on  its  records  its  decision 
and  its  final  judgment  in  the  said  case  in  the  following 
words,  to  wit : 

“  Resolved ,  that  the  Presbytery  of  New  York,  having 
listened  to  the  paper  of  the  Rev.  Charles  A.  Briggs,  D.D., 
in  the  case  of  the  Presbyterian  Church  in  the  United 
States  of  America  against  him  as  to  the  sufficiency  of  the 
charges  and  specifications  in  form  and  legal  effect ;  and, 


9 


without  approving  of  the  positions  stated  in  his  Inaugural 
Address,  at  the  same  time  desiring  earnestly  the  peace  and 
quiet  of  the  Church,  and  in  view  of  the  declarations  made 
by  Dr.  Briggs  touching  his  loyalty  to  the  Holy  Scriptures 
and  the  Westminster  Standards,  and  of  his  disclaimers  of 
interpretations  put  on  some  of  his  words,  deem  it  best  to 
dismiss  the  case,  and  does  so  dismiss  it.  ’  ’ 

That  the  said  Presbytery  also  proceeded,  as  is  more 
specifically  set  forth  in  the  grounds  of  appeal  and  in  the 
specifications  of  errors  of  the  said  Presbytery  hereinafter 
alleged  in  accordance  with  Sections  95  and  96  of  the  Book 
of  Discipline,  and  that  some  of  the  proceedings  of  the  said 
Presbytery  were  omitted  in  whole  or  in  part  from  the 
minutes  of  the  said  meeting  on  the  said  fourth  day  of 
November,  A.D.  1891. 

From  the  aforesaid  action  of  the  said  Presbytery  of 
New  York  on  the  said  fourth  day  of  November,  A.D. 
1891,  in  dismissing  the  case,  which  was,  so  far  as  said 
Presbytery  is  concerned,  the  final  judgment  of  the  said 
Presbytery  in  the  case  of  the  Presbyterian  Church  in  the 
United  States  of  America  against  the  Rev.  Charles  A. 
Briggs,  D.D.,  in  behalf  of  the  Presbyterian  Church  in  the 
United  States  of  America,  we,  the  undersigned,  the  Prose¬ 
cuting  Committee  in  the  said  case,  do  hereby  appeal  to 
your  Venerable  Body,  the  General  Assembly  of  the  Pres¬ 
byterian  Church  in  the  United  States  of  America,  in 
accordance  with  the  provisions  of  Sections  94  and  102  of 
the  Book  of  Discipline. 

The  grounds  of  this  appeal  are  as  follows  : 


10 


FIRST  GROUND  OF  APPEAL. 

Irregularity  in  the  Proceedings  of  said  Presbytery 

of  New  York. 

(Section  95,  Book  of  Discipline.) 

SPECIFICATION  FIRST. 

In  this,  that  the  said  Presbytery  of  New  York,  while 
proceeding  in  said  case  under  the  provisions  of  Section  22 
of  the  Book  of  Discipline,  permitted  the  accused  to  read 
in  the  hearing  of  said  Judicatory  before  he  was  required 
to  plead  c  6  guilty  5  ’  or  “  not  guilty,  ’  ’  and  admitted  to  its 
records  and  consideration,  a  paper  which  purported  to  be 
objections  to  the  sufficiency  of  the  charges  and  specifica¬ 
tions  in  form  or  legal  effect,  but  which  was  in  fact,  and  is 
as  denominated  by  the  said  accused,  a  u  Response  to  the 
Charges  and  Specifications  submitted  to  the  Presbytery 
of  New  York  by  Prof.  Charles  Augustus  Briggs,  D.D.,” 
which  paper  is  hereby  referred  to  as  a  part  of  the  record 
of  the  proceedings  which  culminated  in  the  decision  and 
final  judgment,  from  which  this  appeal  is  taken,  which 
paper  or  “  Response  ”  consisted  to  a  great  extent  of 
statements  of  fact  or  arguments  on  the  merits  of  the  case. 
That  the  said  statements  of  fact  or  arguments  on  the  merits 
of  the  case  should  not  have  been  admitted  or  considered 
by  the  said  J udicatory  at  this  stage  of  the  trial,  and  the 
admission  and  consideration  of  the  said  paper  or  “  Re¬ 
sponse  5  ’  in  so  far  as  said  paper  was  an  answer  upon  the 
merits,  to  the  charges  and  specifications,  and  in  so  far  as  it 
was  in  fact  a  presentation  of  the  case  upon  its  merits  for 
the  defense  of  the  accused,  was  an  error  and  irregular. 

SPECIFICATION  SECOND. 

In  this,  that  the  said  Presbytery  of  New  York  during 
the  proceedings  of  the  said  Presbytery  in  said  case  under 
the  provisions  of  Section  22  of  the  Book  of  Discipline  and 


11 


before  the  said  accused  was  required  to  plead  “  guilty,” 
or  “  not  guilty,”  and  when  the  said  Presbytery  should 
have  considered  nothing  but  the  preliminary  objections 
raised  by  the  said  accused  as  to  the  sufficiency  of  the 
charges  and  specifications  in  form  and  legal  effect,  per¬ 
mitted  the  Rev.  Henry  Van  Dyke,  D.D.,  Rev.  Francis  M. 
Brown,  D.D.,  Rev.  J.  Hall  McXlvaine,  Jr.,  D.D.,  Rev. 
Thomas  S.  Hastings,  D.D.,  Rev.  Henry  M.  Field,  D.I)., 
and  Rev.  Spencer  L.  Hillier,  members  of  the  said  Presby¬ 
tery,  to  make  pleas  for  the  defense  of  the  accused,  which 
said  pleas  involved  the  merits  of  the  case,  while  your  ap¬ 
pellant,  acting  as  a  Prosecuting  Committee,  was  heard 
only  touching  the  sufficiency  of  the  charges  and  specifica¬ 
tions  in  form  and  legal  effect,  and  was  debarred  from  pre¬ 
senting  either  testimony  or  argument  touching  the  merits 
of  the  case,  although  your  appellant,  the  Prosecuting  Com¬ 
mittee,  offered  to  the  said  Judicatory  to  prove  and  sustain 
each  and  every  one  of  the  charges  and  specifications  by 
competent  evidence,  and  out  of  the  Scriptures  and  by  the 
Standards  of  the  Presbyterian  Church,  but  without  receiv¬ 
ing  such  evidence  or  hearing  the  arguments  of  the  said 
Prosecuting  Committee  in  support  of  the  same,  the  Judi¬ 
catory  voted  to  dismiss,  and  did  dismiss,  the  case.  (See 
Report  of  Official  Stenographer,  pages  51-59,  62,  66-68, 
78,  80,  82,  84,  86,  92,  93,  98,  110,  120.)  * 

SPECIFICATION  THIRD. 

In  this,  that  the  said  Presbytery,  by  rendering  the  said 
decision  or  final  judgment,  dismissing  the  case,  prevented 
amendments  from  being  made  to  the  said  charges  and 
specifications,  although  your  appellant,  the  said  Prosecut¬ 
ing  Committee,  stated  to  the  Judicatory  that  the  Prose¬ 
cuting  Committee  could,  in  a  very  few  minutes  and  with- 

*  These  figures  refer  to  the  pages  of  the  Official  Stenographer’s  Report,  as 
type  written,  hut  the  references  can  be  readily  found  by  turning  to  the  corre¬ 
sponding  numbers  in  the  margin  of  the  Stenographer’s  Report,  as  printed  at 
p.  150  of  this  record. 


12 


out  changing  the  general  nature  of  the  same,  amend  the 
said  charges  and  specifications  so  as  to  completely  obvi¬ 
ate  any  objections  raised  by  said  Dr.  Briggs,  so  far  as  said 
objections  had  any  force  or  relevancy,  as  to  the  sufficiency 
of  the  charges  and  specifications  in  form  or  legal  effect, 
and  proposed,  in  the  furtherance  of  justice,  that  the  Com¬ 
mittee  should  be  permitted  to  make  such  amendments. 

(See  Deport  of  Official  Stenographer,  page  41.) 

SPECIFICATION'  FO  URTII. 

In  this,  that  the  said  Presbytery  in  its  decision  and  final 
judgment  voted  to  dismiss  the  case,  not  because  the  Pres¬ 
bytery  had  determined  that  the  charges  and  specifications 
were  insufficient  in  form  or  legal  effect,  but  because  it, 
the  said  Presbytery,  was  “  desiring  earnestly  the  peace 
and  quiet  of  the  Church,  and  in  view  of  the  declarations 
made  by  Dr.  Briggs  touching  his  loyalty  to  the  Holy 
Scripture  and  the  Westminster  Standards,  and  of  his  dis¬ 
claimers  of  interpretations  put  on  some  of  his  words,” 
whereas,  the  question  of  the  sufficiency  in  form  and  legal 
effect  of  the  charges  and  specifications,  being  a  prelimi- 
naiy  objection,  should  have  been  formally  passed  upon  or 
determined  by  the  said  Presbytery  as  provided  for  by 
Section  22  of  the  Book  of  Discipline  before  dismissing  the 
case  in  the  manner  aforesaid. 

SPECIFI CA  TION  FIFTH. 

In  this,  that  at  the  meeting  of  the  said  Presbytery  held 
October  fifth,  A.D.  1891,  the  said  Presbytery  by  a  yea 
and  nay  vote  refused  to  dismiss  the  case,  by  arresting  the 
judicial  proceedings,  and  discharging  the  Committee  from 
furthei  consideration  of  the  case,  that  the  vote  to  dismiss 
the  case  taken  at  the  adjourned  meeting  on  November 
fourth,  A.D.  1891,  was  taken  without  action  on  the  pre¬ 
liminary  objections  to  the  sufficiency  of  the  charges  and 
specifications  as  to  form  and  legal  effect,  and  without  a 
reconsideration  of  the  vote  not  to  dismiss,  which  was 


13 


taken  on  said  fifth  day  of  October,  A.D.  1891,  and  there¬ 
fore  the  vote  to  dismiss  taken  upon  the  said  fourth  day  of 
November,  A.D.  1891,  was  wholly  illegal  and  null  and 
void. 

SPECIFICATION  SIXTH. 

In  this,  that  the  mode  of  procedure  in  the  said  Presby¬ 
tery  in  the  consideration  of  the  said  case  was  practically 
to  hear  the  case  of  the  accused  upon  its  merits  before  and 
without  hearing  the  presentation  of  evidence  in  support  of 
the  said  charges  and  specifications. 

SPECIFICATION  SEVENTH 

In  this,  that  in  the  paper  or  “  Response  ”  to  the  charges 
and  specifications  submitted  by  the  accused,  statements 
and  arguments  touching  the  merits  of  the  case,  referred 
to  in  the  said  action  and  final  judgment  of  the  said  Pres¬ 
bytery  as  a  ground  for  the  said  dismissal  of  and  final 
judgment  in  the  case  by  the  use  of  the  following  words,  to 
wit,  “  declarations  made  by  Dr.  Briggs,  touching  his 
loyalty  to  the  Holy  Scripture  and  the  Westminster  Stand¬ 
ards,  and  of  his  disclaimers  of  interpretations  put  on  some 
of  his  words, 5  ’  were  made  and  were  given  by  the  Pres¬ 
bytery  the  force  of  sworn,  approbated  and  subscribed 
testimony  (contrary  to  the  provisions  of  Sections  60,  61 
and  62  of  the  Book  of  Discipline),  whereas,  the  said  Dr. 
Briggs,  in  making  or  giving  the  said  declarations  and 
disclaimers  referred  to  in  the  said  final  judgment,  was 
neither  sworn  as  a  witness,  nor  cross-examined  by  the 
Prosecuting  Committee,  nor  by  any  member  of  the  Court. 

SPECIFICATION  EIGHTH. 

In  this,  that  the  said  accused  was  permitted  to  present 
and  file  objections  to  a  portion  of  the  report  of  the  Prose¬ 
cuting  Committee  made  to  the  Presbytery  on  October  5th, 
A.D.  1891,  said  portion  being  denominated  by  the  said 
accused  “  The  Preamble  ”  ;  and  in  that  the  said  Presbytery 
or  some  of  the  members  thereof  considered  the  objections 


14 


of  the  said  Dr.  Briggs  to  the  said  Preamble  a  ground  in 
whole  or  in  part  for  the  votes  of  the  said  members  to  dis¬ 
miss  the  case  or  for  the  said  decision  of  the  said  Presby¬ 
tery,  whereas  the  said  portion  of  the  said  report  or  so- 
called  Preamble  was  no  part  of  the  said  charges  and  speci¬ 
fications  and  was  not  served  upon  the  said  Dr.  Briggs  as  a 
portion  of  the  said  charges  and  specifications  to  which  he 
was  cited  to  plead. 

SPECIFICATION  NINTH. 

In  this,  that  the  said  decision  and  final  judgment  of 
the  said  Presbytery  dismissing  the  said  case  before  the 
said  Prosecuting  Committee  was  permitted  to  present  evi¬ 
dence  in  support  of  the  said  charges  and  specifications  pre¬ 
vented  the  said  Judicatory  from  going  into  private  session, 
the  parties,  their  counsel  and  all  other  persons  not  being 
members  of  the  body  being  excluded,  for  the  “  careful 
deliberation  ”  required  by  Section  23  of  the  Book  of  Dis¬ 
cipline,  before  the  Judicatory  shall  proceed  to  vote  and  to 
judgment. 

SECOND  GROUND  OF  APPEAL. 

Receiving  Improper  Testimony. 

(Section  95,  Book  of  Discipline.) 

SPECIFICATION  FIRST. 

In  this,  that  in  the  paper  or  “  Response  ”  to  the  charges 
and  specifications  submitted  by  the  accused,  statements 
and  arguments  touching  the  merits  of  the  case,  referred  to 
in  the  said  action  and  final  judgment  of  the  said  Presby¬ 
tery  as  a  ground  for  the  said  dismissal  of  and  final  judg¬ 
ment  in  the  case  by  the  use  of  the  following  words,  to  wit, 
“  declarations  made  by  Dr.  Briggs,  touching  his  loyalty  to 
the  Holy  Scripture  and  the  Westminster  Standards,  and  of 
his  disclaimers  of  interpretations  put  on  some  of  his 
words,”  were  made  and  were  given  by  the  Presbytery  the 


15 


force  of  sworn,  approbated  and  subscribed  testimony  (con¬ 
trary  to  the  provisions  of  Sections  60,  61  and  62  of  the 
Book  of  Discipline),  whereas,  the  said  Dr.  Briggs,  in  mak¬ 
ing  or  giving  the  said  declarations  and  disclaimers  referred 
to  in  the  said  final  judgment,  was  neither  sworn  as  a  wit¬ 
ness,  nor  cross-examined  by  the  Prosecuting  Committee, 
nor  by  any  member  of  the  Court. 

SPECIFICATION  SECOND. 

In  this,  that  statements  and  arguments  were  made  by 
the  Rev.  Henry  Van  Dyke,  D.D.,  Rev.  J.  Hall  Mcllvaine, 
Jr.,  D.D.,  Rev.  Thomas  S.  Hastings,  D.D.,  Rev.  Francis 
M.  Brown,  D.D.,  Rev.  Henry  M.  Field,  D.D.,  and  Rev. 
Spencer  L.  Hillier  as  to  the  views  and  the  orthodoxy  of 
the  said  Dr.  Briggs,  which  said  statements  and  arguments 
are  contained  in  the  official  stenographer’s  report  of  the 
trial,  which  report  is  hereby  referred  to  as  a  part  of  the 
record  of  the  proceedings  which  culminated  in  the  decision 
and  final  judgment  from  which  this  appeal  is  taken,  and 
which  said  statements  and  arguments  were  given  by  the 
Presbytery  the  force  of  sworn,  approbated  and  subscribed 
testimony,  while  the  persons  above  named  as  making  the 
said  statements  and  arguments  were  not  sworn  as  wit¬ 
nesses  nor  subjected  to  cross-examination  by  the  Prosecut¬ 
ing  Committee,  nor  by  any  member  of  the  Court,  as  re¬ 
quired  by  the  provisions  of  Sections  60,  61  and  62  of  the 
Book  of  Discipline. 


THIRD  GROUND  OF  APPEAL. 

Declining  to  Receive  Important  Testimony. 
(Section  95,  Book  of  Discipline.) 
SPECIFICATION  FIRST 

In  this,  that  the  said  Presbytery,  in  making  the  said 
decision  and  final  judgment  from  which  appeal  is  now 


16 


taken,  made  said  decision  and  final  judgment  before  any 
evidence  was  admitted  in  support  of  the  said  charges  and 
specifications,  although  your  appellant,  acting  as  a 
Prosecuting  Committee,  was  before  the  said  Judicatory 
and  was  prepared  and  affirmed  its  ability  and  readiness 
to  sustain  by  competent  evidence  each  and  every  one  of 
the  said  charges  and  specifications,  while,  notwithstanding 
such  presence,  such  affirmation  and  such  offer  of  the  said 
Prosecuting  Committee,  said  Committee  was  not  granted 
any  opportunity  to  present  such  testimony  or  evidence  in 
support  of  the  said  charges  and  specifications.  (See  Re¬ 
port  of  Official  Stenographer,  pages  62,  66  and  67.) 


FOURTH  GROUND  OF  APPEAL. 

Hastening  to  a  Decision  Before  the  Testimony  was 

Fully  Taken. 

(Section  95,  Book  of  Discipline.) 

SPECIFICATION  FIRST. 

In  this,  that  the  said  Presbytery  rendered  a  decision 
and  final  judgment  in  the  case  by  dismissing  the  same 
befoie  any  proper  or  competent  evidence  whatever  was 
taken  by  or  submitted  to  the  Judicatory  in  behalf  of  the 
accused  to  disprove  the  said  charges  and  specifications. 

SPECIFICATION  SECOND. 

In  this,  that  the  said  Presbytery  in  making  a  decision 
and  final  judgment  dismissing  the  case  from  which  appeal 
is  now  taken,  rendered  a  decision  in  the  said  case  before 
any  evidence  was  taken  in  support  of  the  said  charges 
and  specifications,  although  the  Prosecuting  Committee 
was.  before  the  Judicatory  prepared  and  affirming  its 
ability  and  readiness  to  sustain  by  competent  evidence 
each  and  every  one  of  the  said  charges  and  specifications. 
(SeeKeport  of  Official  Stenographer,  pages  62,  66  and  67.) 


17 


FIFTH  GROUND  OF  APPEAL. 

Manifestation  of  Prejudice  in  the  Conduct  of 

the  Case. 

(Section  95,  Book  of  Discipline.) 

SPECIFICATION  FIRST. 

In  this,  that  the  said  Presbytery  received  and  was 
moved  by  unsworn  and  improper  testimony  in  the  making 
of  the  decision  or  final  judgment  of  the  said  Presbytery, 
said  improper  testimony  being  statements  and  arguments 
for  the  defense  of  the  said  accused,  touching  the  merits  of 
the  said  case,  to  wit :  the  aforesaid  4  ‘ Response  to  the 
Charges  and  Specifications  submitted  to  the  Presbytery  of 
New  York,  by  Prof.  Charles  Augustus  Briggs,  D.D.” 

SPECIFICATION  SECOND. 

In  this,  that  several  members  of  the  said  Presbytery, 
hereinafter  named,  who  voted  to  dismiss  the  said  case  did 
so  vote  for  reasons  other  than  the  insufficiency  of  the  said 
charges  in  form  and  legal  effect,  and  presented  to  the  said 
Presbytery,  as  reasons  for  voting  to  dismiss  the  said  case, 
statements  as  follows : 

Rev.  Henry  Van  Dyke,  D.D.,  said: 

“  First  of  all,  is  it  for  the  interest  of  peace  and  unity 
and  purity  in  the  Church  to  try  a  man  for  his  ecclesiastical 
life  unde]’  circumstances  which  are  calculated  to  exert  a 
prejudice  against  him  ?  It  is  not  necessary  to  allude  to  all 
these  circumstances  to-day — confusions  in  the  atmosphere 
that  have  enveloped  this  matter  from  the  very  first ;  tur¬ 
bulent  voices  from  ways  which  have  been  indicated  to-day. 
It  is  not  necessary  for  us  to  state  these  circumstances. 
Here  is  the  preamble,  which  contains  a  serious  and  pain¬ 
ful  allegation,  which  it  is  not  even  proposed  to  prove. 
*  *  *  Is  it  for  the  interest  of  the  peace  and  unity  and 

purity  in  our  Church  to  proceed  to  try  a  man  for  his  life 
who  has  just  made  the  professions  of  fundamental  belief 
that  have  been  made  in  the  course  of  this  paper  that  has 


18 


been  read  here  to-day?  *  *  *  Will  it  tend  to  unify 

and  to  purify  our  Church  to  take  a  man  who  holds  those 
beliefs,  to  put  him  on  trial  for  his  ecclesiastical  life?  A 
heresy  trial  is  a  great  evil.  The  history  of  the  Church 
proves  it.  It  begets  distinctions,  suspicions,  jealousies 
and  strife.  I  admit  that  there  are  cases  where  it  is  a 
necessary  evil,  but  to  embrace  the  evil  without  a  necessity 
is  a  sin  against  our  brother,  against  the  Church  and  against 
the  work.  *  *  *  It  is  as  clear  as  light  that  the  Divine 

inspiration  and  the  supreme  authority  of  all  the  Holy 
Scriptures  is  not  called  in  question  to-day.”  *  *  * 

(See  Report  of  Official  Stenographer,  pages  51-59.) 

Also  Rev.  J.  Hall  Mcllvaine,  D.D.,  said: 

‘ ‘  That  Inaugural  Address  contains  nothing  that  he  had 
not  put  in  his  books  before.  His  books  did  not  disturb 
the  peace  of  the  Church  to  any  great  extent,  *  *  * 

and  we  have  this  Inaugural  Address ;  but  it  was  not  to 
disturb  the  peace  of  the  Church.  It  was  the  taking  of 
phrases  from  it,  the  culling  of  words  from  it  here  and 
there,  misrepresenting  and  misinterpreting  them,  sending 
them  through  the  newspapers  which  breaks  through  the 
report,  making  them  suspicious  of  heresies  in  the  Presby¬ 
tery  until  no  one  knew  what  Dr.  Briggs  had  said.  I 
remember  a  member  of  one  of  the  Presbyteries  wrote  to 
me  and  said,  ‘  What  in  the  world  are  you  standing  by 
Dr.  Briggs  for,  when  he  does  not  believe  in  the  inspiration 
of  the  Scriptures?  5  and  I  wrote  back  to  him,  4  You  know 
no  more  about  this  case  than  one  unborn.’  That  is  the 
case  with  three-quarters  of  the  Presbyteries  in  the 
Assembly.  It  was  through  misrepresentations  of  Dr. 
Briggs’  sayings  and  his  position,  that  this  whole  country 
was  stirred  up.  *  *  *  Is  it  wise  at  this  time,  when  so 

many  different  points  are  under  discussion  ? — for  example, 
here  is  this  question  of  Moses  and  the  Pentateuch — it  is  not 
wise  for  this  Presbytery  to  array  itself  against  a  very  large 


19 


part  of  the  scholarship  of  the  world.  *  *  It  is  not  the  time 
to  settle  these  questions  about  Moses  and  the  Pentateuch.” 

(See  report  of  Official  Stenographer,  pages  79-86.) 

Also  Rev.  Thomas  S.  Hastings,  H.D.,  said: 

“  As  I  have  listened  to  that  remarkable  paper  which  Dr. 
Briggs  presented  to  us  this  morning  *  *  *  I  could 

not  see  how  any  man  who  had  in  his  heart  a  desire  for 
the  honor  of  the  Church  and  her  Blessed  Head  could 
permit  this  trial  to  go  on.  *  *  *  I  do  desire  that 

this  case  should  stop  where  it  is ;  and  that  this  beloved 
brother  should  be  permitted  to  go  back  again  to  the 
important  work  to  which  the  Lord  has  called  him,  for  I 
have  lived  long  enough  to  know  that  a  heresy  trial  burns 
over  the  ground,  and  blasts,  and  curses  everything  that  is 
fairest  and  best — for  the  sake  of  these  beloved  pastors  and 
the  Churches  which  they  represent,  I  desire  that  this  case 
may  stop  where  it  is.  *  *  *  Sixty-three  Presbyteries 

throughout  the  country  have  been  interfering  with  the 
rights  and  prerogatives  of  this  Presbytery  in  a  way 
unparalleled  in  the  history  of  the  Church.  *  *  *  We 

approach  this  trial  with  the  impossibility  of  fairness  star¬ 
ing  us  in  the  face,  because,  without  hearing,  without 
judicial  procedure,  and  without  respect  to  the  original 
right  of  the  Presbytery,  the  stigma  of  the  Court,  the 
highest  Court  of  our  Church,  has  been  put  upon  my  be¬ 
loved  brother ;  and  if  there  were  no  other  reasons  than 
that,  I,  for  one,  should  be  here  to  argue  that  we  cannot 
fairly  try  the  case.  Justice  is  impossible  under  the  cir¬ 
cumstances  ;  *  *  *  Then  I  must  say  I  have  one  other 

reason  for  arguing  for  the  dismissal  of  this  case.  I  know 
Dr.  Briggs’s  views  probably  as  well  as  any  man  in  this 
house.  I  know  that  those  charges  are  not  true.  I  mean 
to  say  nothing  against  the  character  or  integrity  of  the 
Committee ;  but  I  know  of  my  own  knowledge  that  he  is 
not  guilty  under  those  charges  and  specifications.” 

(See  Report  of  Official  Stenographer,  |3ages  92-94.) 


20 


Also  Rev.  Francis  M.  Brown,  D.D.,  said: 

‘  ‘  I  would  like  to  say  that  no  restriction  whatever  is  put 
around  any  member  of  the  Presbytery  in  explaining  his 
views  to  as  great  length  as  he  pleases  in  any  proper  way. 
The  public  prints  are  open.  It  is  simply  a  question  as  to 
whether  this  Presbytery,  in  view  of  all  these  facts,  sees  fit 
to  arrest  the  debate  and  dismiss  the  case.” 

(See  Report  of  Official  Stenographer,  page  120.) 

Also  Rev.  Henry  M.  Field,  D.D.,  said: 

“I  am  afraid  of  this  Committee.  *  *  *  We  have 

created  a  Committee  over  which  we  have  no  power  what¬ 
ever.  We  are  in  an  omnibus,  and  they  have  the  reins, 
and  will  drive  us  whither  they  will.  This  is  the  very 
reason  that  I  want  to  ask  the  Presbytery  to  stop  here.  If 
we  can  stop  it  let  us  stop  it  now.” 

(See  Report  of  Official  Stenographer,  page  98.) 

Also  Rev.  Spencer  L.  Hillier  said : 

‘  ‘  I  am  persuaded  many  of  us,  like  myself,  in  the  inter¬ 
est  of  peace  and  justice  and  righteousness  feel  that  we 
want  this  matter  adjusted  and  finished  on  a  proper  basis. 
We  want  to  give  a  full  and  free  and  thorough  expression 
of  our  faith  and  confidence  to  Dr.  Briggs  in  what  he  has 
said.” 

(See  Report  of  Official  Stenographer,  page  110.) 

SPECIFICATION  THIRD. 

In  this,  that  the  said  Prosecuting  Committee  in  the  fur¬ 
therance  of  justice  was  not  given  opportunity  to  present 
amendments  to  the  said  charges  and  specifications,  although 
the  said  Prosecuting  Committee  proposed  to  amend  the 
same  according  to  the  provisions  of  Section  22  of  the  Book 
of  Discipline. 

(See  Report  of  Official  Stenographer,  page  41.) 

SPECIFIC  A  TION  FO  UR  III. 

In  this,  that  while  the  merits  of  the  said  case  were  pre¬ 
sented  by  and  for  the  accused  under  the  guise  of  sub- 


21 


mitting  objections  to  the  sufficiency  of  the  said  charges  and 
specifications  in  form  or  legal  effect,  the  said  appellant, 
acting  as  a  Prosecuting  Committee,  was  not  permitted  to 
introduce  testimony  or  evidence  in  support  of  the  said 
charges  and  specifications,  although  the  said  Committee 
was  prepared  so  to  do,  and  affirmed  its  ability  and  readi¬ 
ness  to  sustain,  by  competent  evidence,  each  and  every 
one  of  the  said  charges  and  specifications. 

(See  Report  of  Official  Stenographer,  pages  41,  62,  66 

and  67.) 


SIXTH  GROUND  OF  APPEAL. 

Mistake  or  Injustice  in  the  Decision. 

(Section  95,  Book  of  Discipline.) 

SPECIFICATION  FIRST. 

In  this,  that  said  decision  and  final  judgment  of  the 
said  Presbytery  of  New  York,  hereby  appealed  from,  may 
be  interpreted  as  an  approval  by  the  said  Presbytery  of 
the  utterances  in  the  Inaugural  Address  of  the  said  Dr. 
Briggs  for  which  he  was  and  is  called  in  question,  and 
upon  which  the  charges  and  specifications  were  based. 

SPECIFICATION  SECOND. 

In  this,  that  the  said  Presbytery  of  New  York  voted  to 
dismiss  and  did  dismiss  and  passed  final  judgment  in 
said  case,  not  because  of  the  insufficiency  of  the  said 
charges  and  specifications  in  form  or  legal  effect,  but  for 
the  mistaken  and  unjust  reason  expressed  in  the  said 
final  judgment  in  the  following  words,  to  wit:  “  desiring 
earnestly  the  peace  and  quiet  of  the  Church  and  in  view 
of  the  declarations  made  by  Dr.  Briggs,  touching  his 
loyalty  to  the  Holy  Scriptures  and  the  Westminster 
Standards,  and  of  his  disclaimers  of  interpretations  put 
on  some  of  his  words.” 


22 


SPECIFICATION  THIRD. 

In  this,  that  in  the  aforesaid  decision  and  final  judgment 
of  the  said  Presbytery  of  New  York  in  dismissing  the 
said  case  the  words  ‘ £  without  approving  of  the  positions 
stated  in  his  Inaugural  Address  ”  and  “  disclaimers  of 
interpretations  put  on  some  of  his  words  ’  ’  are  vague,  in¬ 
definite  and  uncertain  in  their  application  and  are  in  no 
sense  a  sufficient  answer  to  or  refutation  of  the  alleged 
hurtful  errors  of  the  said  Dr.  Briggs  contained  in  the  said 
Inaugural  Address  upon  which  the  said  charges  and 
specifications  were  based. 

SPECIFICATION  FOURTH. 

In  this,  that  the  declarations  made  by  Dr.  Briggs 
touching  his  loyalty  to  the  Holy  Scriptures  and  the 
Westminster  Standards  and  his  disclaimers  of  interpre¬ 
tations  put  on  some  of  his  words,  to  which  reference  is 
made  in  the  resolution  of  the  said  Presbytery  dismissing 
and  expressing  its  final  judgment  in  the  said  case  are  not, 
in  any  sense,  a  retraction  or  refutation  of  the  hurtful  errors 
contained  in  said  Inaugural  Address  upon  which  the  said 
charges  and  specifications  tabled  against  him  were  based. 

SPECIFICATION  FIFTH. 

In  this,  that  by  the  dismissal  of  the  said  case  by  the 
said  Presbytery  of  New  York  the  earnestly  desired  peace 
and  quiet  of  the  church  cannot  be  secured. 

SPECIFICATION  SIXTH. 

In  this,  that  the  mode  of  procedure  in  the  said  Presby¬ 
tery  in  the  consideration  of  the  said  case  was,  practically, 
to  hear  the  case  of  the  accused  upon  its  merits  before 
and  without  hearing  the  presentation  of  evidence  in  sup¬ 
port  of  the  said  charges  and  specifications. 

SPECIFICATION  SEVENTH. 

In  this,  that  the  said  decision  and  final  judgment  of  the 
said  Presbytery  dismissing  the  said  case  before  the  said 


23 


Prosecuting  Committee  was  permitted  to  present  evidence 
in  support  of  the  said  charges  and  specifications,  prevented 
the  said  Judicatory  from  going  into  private  session,  the 
parties,  their  counsel  and  all  other  persons  not  being 
members  of  the  body  being  excluded  and  prevented  the 
“ careful  deliberation ”  required  by  Section  23  of  the 
Book  of  Discipline,  before  the  Judicatory  shall  proceed  to 
vote  and  to  judgment. 

And  in  conclusion  your  Appellant  prays  your  Vener¬ 
able  Body,  the  General  Assembly  of  the  Presbyterian 
Church  in  the  United  States  of  America,  to  receive  and 
issue  this  appeal,  and  to  take  therein  such  action  as  in 
your  wisdom  may  seem  best,  in  order  to  secure  and  pre¬ 
serve  the  purity  and  peace  of  our  Church. 


George  W.  F.  Birch, 
Joseph  J.  Lampe, 
Robert  F.  Sample, 
John  J.  Stevenson, 
John  J.  McCook, 


Prosecuting 
Committee , 


Appellant. 


Presbytery  of  New  York. 

153  East  78th  Street, 
November  16th,  1891. 

The  Rev.  Geo.  W.  F.  Birch,  D.D., 

Chairman  of  Prosecuting  Committee. 

Dear  Sir: 

I  have  received  from  the  Prosecuting  Committee  of  the 
Presbytery  of  New  York,  in  due  time,  an  Appeal  to  the 
General  Assembly  from  the  decision  and  final  judgment  of 
the  Presbytery  of  New  York,  dismissing  the  case  rendered 
November  4th,  1891,  and  have  placed  the  same  on  file. 


S.  D.  Alexander, 

Stated,  Cleric. 


24 


PROCEEDINGS  IN  THE  PRESBYTERY  OF  NEW  YORK 

IN  THE  CASE  OF 

THE  PRESBYTERIAN  CHURCH  IN  THE  UNITED  STATES 

OF  AMERICA 

against 

THE  REV.  CHARLES  A.  BRIGGS,  D.D., 

Including  all  papers  pertaining  thereto. 

(Sections  24,  96  and  101  of  Book  of  Discipline.) 

Meetino  of  April  13th,  1891. 

At  a  meeting  of  the  Presbytery  of  New  York,  held  April 
13th,  1891,  a  paper  in  reference  to  the  recent  Inaugural 
Address  of  the  Rev.  Charles  A.  Briggs,  D.D.,  was  pre¬ 
sented  by  the  Rev.  G.  W.  F.  Birch,  D.D.,  and  adopted  as 
follows : 

“Whereas,  the  Address  of  the  Rev.  Charles  A.  Briggs, 
D.D.,  a  member  of  this  Presbytery,  delivered  on  Tuesday 
evening,  January  20th,  1891,  on  the  occasion  of  his  inau¬ 
guration  as  the  “  Incumbent  of  the  Edward  Robinson 
Chair  of  Biblical  Theology”  in  the  Union  Theological 
Seminary  (which  Address  has  since  been  published  by 
said  Seminary),  has  been  very  generally  criticized  as  con¬ 
taining  statements  which  are  seemingly  contrary  to  the 
teachings  and  spirit  of  our  Confession  of  Faith,  and 

Whereas ,  this  Address  has  also  been  actually  made  the 
occasion  of  complaint  to  the  General  Assembly  by  at  least 
four  Presbyteries,  therefore, 

Resolved,  that  a  Committee  consisting  of  seven  persons 
be  appointed,  to  which  the  said  Address  shall  be  referred 
for  consideration,  with  instructions  to  report  at  the  meet¬ 
ing  in  May,  what  action,  if  any,  be  appropriate  in  relation 
thereto.” 

Whereupon,  the  following  Committee  was  appointed, 
viz. :  Rev.  Messrs.  Geo.  W.  F.  Birch,  Joseph  J.  Lampe, 


25 


Henry  Yan  Dyke  and  Jesse  F.  Forbes,  with  Elders  John 
J.  Stevenson  and  Walter  Edwards. 

Meeting  of  May  11th,  1891. 

At  a  meeting  of  the  Presbytery  of  New  York,  held  May 
11th,  1891,  the  following  paper  was  presented  by  the  Rev. 
Thomas  S.  Hastings,  D.D.,  and  read: 

4  4  Whereas ,  the  Constitution  of  the  Presbyterian  Church 
declares  that  4  original  jurisdiction  in  relation  to  minis¬ 
ters  pertains  to  the  Presbytery 5  (Book  of  Discipline,  §  18), 
and  that  4  the  judicatory  to  which  a  church  member 
or  a  minister  belongs,  shall  have  sole  jurisdiction  for  the 
trial  of  offences  whenever  or  wherever  committed  by  him  ’ 
(Book  of  Discipline,  §  108),  and 

Whereas ,  condemnation  without  trial  is  contrary  to  all 
law,  civil  and  ecclesiastical,  and 

Whereas ,  the  Presbytery  of  Chester,  in  session  at 
Downingtown,  Pa.,  April  14th,  1891,  adopted  an  Overture 
to  the  General  Assembly,  condemning  the  Rev.  Professor 
Charles  A.  Briggs,  D.D.,  a  member  of  this  Presbytery,  as 
follows : 

4  Whereas ,  the  Directors  of  Union  Theological  Semi¬ 
nary  in  the  City  of  New  York,  have  established  a  new 
Professorship,  to  be  known  as  the  Edward  Robinson  Pro¬ 
fessorship  of  Biblical  Theology,  and  have  transferred  Prof. 
Charles  A.  Briggs  from  the  Chair  of  Hebrew  and  installed 
him  as  Professor  of  Biblical  Theology,  and 

Whereas ,  it  appears  from  the  inaugural  address  of  Dr. 
Briggs,  and  from  his  book  entitled  4  4  Whither ,  ’  ’  and  from 
various  articles  he  has  written  and  published,  that  his 
views  in  relation  to  the  Scriptures  and  upon  other  subjects 
of  vital  importance,  are,  in  the  judgment  of  the  Presby¬ 
tery,  not  in  accordance  with  the  Confession  of  Faith  and 
the  Catechisms  of  our  Church ;  and 


26 


Whereas ,  the  peace  and  purity  of  the  Church  depend 
upon  the  character  of  the  instructions  imparted  to  our 
candidates  for  the  ministry,  found  in  our  theological 
seminaries ; 

Therefore,  Resolved,  that  this  Presbytery  of  Chester, 
convened  at  Downingtown,  Pa.,  April  14th,  1891,  does 
hereby  overture  the  General  Assembly  to  refuse  to  con¬ 
firm  the  aforesaid  appointment  of  Prof.  Briggs  to  the 
Chair  of  Biblical  Theology.’ 

Therefore,  in  view  of  this  Overture  of  the  Presbytery  of 
Chester. 

Resolved ,  that  the  Presbytery  of  New  York  hereby 
overtures  the  General  Assembly  to  pronounce  that  the 
Presbytery  of  Chester  has 

1st ,  Violated  the  constitutional  rights  of  Prof  Briggs, 
in  that  it  has  given  judgment  that  his  views  are  not  in 
accordance  with  the  Confession  of  Faith,  while  he  is  a 
member  of  this  Presbytery  in  good  standing ;  and 

%dly,  has  violated  the  constitutional  rights  of  the  Pres- 
bytery  of  New  York,  which  has  sole  jurisdiction  over  Pro¬ 
fessor  Briggs. 

Furthermore , 

Whereas,  this  Presbytery  has  learned  that  other  Pres¬ 
byteries  besides  the  one  of  which  we  complain,  have  sent 
up  overtures  to  the  Assembly  of  a  similar  character  to 
that  herein  cited,  the  Presbytery  of  New  York  respect¬ 
fully  overtures  the  General  Assembly  to  protect  our  rights 
under  the  Constitution.” 

The  above  paper  having  been  accejjted,  a  motion  was 
made  that  it  be  laid  upon  the  table  until  the  Committee 
on  the  Inaugural  Address  of  Professor  Briggs  had  reported. 

This  motion  was  lost,  and  Presbytery  proceeded  to  con¬ 
sider  a  motion  that  the  above  paper  be  adopted. 


i 


27 


The  ayes  and  nays  being  called  for,  the  motion  to  adopt 
Dr.  Hastings’  paper  was  lost,  by  a  vote  of  62  to  54,  as 
follows : 


MINISTERS- 


Geo.  Alexander. 

Nicholas  Bj erring. 

Charles  A.  Briggs. 

Edward  L.  Clark. 
Nathaniel  W.  Conkling. 
William  T.  Elsing. 

Jesse  F.  Forbes. 

Herbert  Ford. 

Charles  It.  Gillett. 

Henri  L.  Grandlienard. 
Andrew  H.  Harshaw. 

Wm.  R.  Harshaw. 

Thomas  S.  Hastings. 
Charles  E.  Herring. 

James  H.  Hoadley. 

Sam’l  M.  Jackson. 

Joseph  It.  Kerr. 

Daniel  E.  Lorenz. 

Wm.  M.  Martin. 

Henry  M.  McCracken. 

ELDERS — 

Thomas  J.  Hush. 

Richard  H.  Bull. 

Sam’l  J.  Storrs. 

Clark  Brooks. 

William  Crampton. 
Vincent  M.  Wilcox. 

Wm.  Mitchell. 

Robert  Gentle. 


AFFIRMATIVE. 

James  H.  Mcllvaine. 

George  J.  Mingins. 

Charles  H.  Parkhurst. 

John  R.  Paxton. 

George  S.  Pay  son. 

Vincent  Pisek. 

Stealy  B.  Rossiter. 

Albert  G.  Ruliffson. 
Frederick  N.  Rutan. 

Alfred  C.  Roe. 

Philip  Schaff. 

James  E.  Sentz. 

J.  Balcom  Shaw. 

Wilton  M.  Smith. 

Geo.  L.  Spining. 

Charles  L.  Thompson. 

Geo.  S.  Webster. 

Lewis  W.  Barney. 

Henry  Van  Dyke. 

—39 

AFFIRMATIVE. 

Sidney  F.  Wilcox. 

Wm.  A.  Wheelock. 

James  Denholm. 

William  N.  Crane. 

Sam’l  Reeve. 

John  McKennan. 

Henry  C.  Smith. 

—15 


Affirmative 


54 


28 


MINISTERS — NEGATIVE. 


Sam’l  D.  Alexander. 
Jolm  C.  Bliss. 

Robert  R.  Booth. 
Sam’l  Boult. 

John  M.  Buchanan. 
Walter  D.  Buchanan. 
William  T.  Carr. 
James  Chambers. 
Henry  B.  Chapin. 
Conrad  Doench. 
Thomas  Douglas. 
John  H.  Edwards. 
Frank  F.  Ellinwood. 
Henry  B.  Elliot. 
Arthur  Folsom. 
Charles  H.  Gardner. 
J.  H.  Lopez-Guillen. 
A.  Woodruff  Halsey. 
Spencer  L.  Hillier. 
Albert  B.  King. 
Joseph  J.  Lampe. 
Sidney  G.  Law. 
Theodore  Leonhard. 
Wm.  J.  Macdowell. 


Charles  P.  Mallery. 
Francis  H.  Marling. 
Alexander  McLean. 
Horace  G.  Miller. 

Wm.  L.  Moore. 

James  C.  Nightingale. 
Edward  P.  Pay  son. 
Hugh  Pritchard. 

James  S.  Ramsay. 
Charles  S.  Robinson. 
Edward  T.  Root. 

Robert  F.  Sample. 
Joseph  A.  Saxton. 
Adolphus  F.  Schauffler. 
Geo.  L.  Shearer. 

Wm.  A.  Rice. 

Wm.  G.  T.  Shedd. 
Andrew  Shiland. 

John  M.  Stevenson. 
Alex.  W.  Sproull. 
Frederick  E.  Yoegelin. 
Erskine  N.  White. 

John  T.  Wilds. 

David  G.  Wylie. 


ELDERS — NEGATIVE. 


John  J.  McCook. 
Wm.  R.  Worrall. 
John  J.  Stevenson. 
John  C.  Tucker. 
Geo.  M.  Jaques. 

A.  D.  Crane. 

R.  McKee. 


Walter  Edwards. 

Thomas  Anderson. 

Kiliaen  Van  Rensselaer. 
Allan  Hay. 

E.  W.  Thompson. 

Moses  W.  Dodd. 

M.  E.  Sawyer.  — 14 


Negative 


62 


29 


After  the  announcement  of  the  vote  Dr.  Briggs  pre¬ 
sented  the  following  Protest : 

“  Whereas ,  the  Presbytery  of  New  York,  at  its  meeting 
in  April  last,  appointed  a  Committee  to  consider  my  Inau¬ 
gural  Address  in  its  relations  to  the  Confession  of  Faith, 
I  do  hereby  protest  against  such  action  as  unconstitutional, 
as  a  violation  of  the  usages  of  the  denomination  and  as  a 
breach  of  justice  and  sound  discipline,  for  the  following 
reasons : 

1.  No  previous  intimation  was  given,  either  by  the 
mover  or  any  of  the  supporters  of  the  motion,  of  their 
intention  to  take  such  action  against  me,  and  I  had  no 
opportunity  of  considering  the  matter  and  of  advising 
with  friends  how  to  meet  the  motion.  This  is  in  contra¬ 
vention  of  the  usages  of  Presbyterians  that,  before  any 
action  is  taken  against  a  minister,  he  should  be  consulted 
and  warned,  in  order  that  if  possible  action  may  be  ren¬ 
dered  unnecessary. 

2.  The  Committee  was  appointed  in  my  absence,  when 
detained  at  home  by  ill  health,  and  without  my  knowledge 
and  consent,  and  when,  therefore,  my  friends  could  not 
determine  my  views  of  the  motion.  This  is  in  contraven¬ 
tion  of  the  decisions  of  the  General  Assembly  that  ‘ ‘  no 
discussion  ought  to  be  allowed  involving  the  character  of 
an  absent  person,  in  his  absence.”  (Digest,  1878,  pp. 
522,  523.)  The  Presbytery,  noting  my  absence,  for  good 
reasons  ought  to  have  postponed  action  until  the  next 
meeting  of  Presbytery. 

3.  I  had  no  opportunity  of  making  any  explanation  to 
Presbytery,  such  as  might  have  made  the  appointment 
unnecessary.  It  was  my  privilege  so  to  do,  and  it  was  in 
the  interests  of  healthful  discipline  that  the  Presbytery 
should  first  have  afforded  me  the  opportunity. 

4.  The  Committee  was  appointed  in  April  to  consider  an 


30 


inaugural  address  delivered  January  20,  in  public,  in  the 
Chapel  of  the  Union  Theological  Seminary,  and  soon  after 
published,  and  which  had  been  for  several  weeks  accessible 
to  every  member  of  Presbytery  before  the  meeting  of  the 
Presbytery,  and  which  could  have  been  read  by  any  mem¬ 
ber  of  Presbytery  in  an  hour,  and  considered  by  him.  It 
is  not  the  practice  of  judicatories  of  the  Presbyterian 
Church  to  appoint  Committees  to  investigate  such  printed 
documents. 

5.  The  practice  of  Presbyterian  discipline  throughout 
the  world  is  based  upon  the  doctrine :  “  A  Presbytery  is 
not  so  far  to  receive  the  information,  as  to  proceed  to  the 
citation  of  a  minister,  or  any  way  begin  the  process  until 
there  be  first  some  person  who,  under  his  hand,  give  in  the 
complaint  with  some  account  of  its  probability,  and  under¬ 
takes  to  make  out  the  libel ;  2d,  or  at  least  do  before  the 
Presbytery  undertake  to  make  it  out  under  the  pain  of 
being  considered  as  slanderous,  or,  3d,  that  the  fama 
clamosa  of  the  scandal  be  so  great,  as  that  the  Presbytery 
for  their  own  vindication  see  themselves  necessitated  to 
begin  the  process  without  any  accuser ;  but  the  Presby¬ 
tery  in  this  case  should  be  careful,  first  to  inquire  into  the 
rise,  occasion,  brotchers  and  grounds  of  the  fama  clamosa .” 
(Stuart  of  Pend.  p.  217,  1802.)  In  accordance  with  these 
ancient  rules,  an  old  Book  of  Discipline  defines  that,  “  In 
order  to  render  an  offence  proper  for  the  cognizance  of  a 
judicatory  on  this  ground,  the  rumor  must  specify  some 
particular  sin  or  sins ;  it  must  be  general  or  widely  spread ; 
it  must  not  be  transient  but  permanent,  and  rather  gaining 
strength  than  declining ;  and  it  must  be  accompanied  with 
strong  presumption  of  truth.  Taking  up  charges  on  this 
ground,  of  course,  requires  great  caution,  and  the  exercise 
of  much  Christian  prudence.”  (III.  5.) 

The  New  Book  of  Discipline,  when  it  simplified  the  law 
of  process  and  says  :  “  Process  against  an  alleged  offender 


31 


shall  not  be  commenced  unless  some  person  undertakes  to 
sustain  the  charge,  or  unless  the  judicatory  finds  it  neces¬ 
sary  for  the  ends  of  discipline  to  investigate  the  alleged 
offence 5  ’  (II.  6),  does  not  do  away  with  these  great  princi¬ 
ples  of  Presbyterian  practice,  which  have  been  followed 
by  judicatories  for  centuries  in  all  parts  of  the  world. 

The  Committee  was  not  appointed  on  the  ground  of  com¬ 
mon  fame  to  investigate  rumors,  but  to  investigate  a 
printed  pamphlet,  and  therefore  it  has  no  legal  existence. 
If  it  had  been  appointed  on  the  ground  of  common  fame, 
the  duty  of  the  Committee  would  have  been,  not  to  inves¬ 
tigate  the  pamphlet,  but,  in  the  language  of  the  Old  Book 
of  Discipline,  they  should  have  considered  that  “  a  general 
rumor  may  be  raised  by  the  rashness,  censoriousness  or 
malice  of  one  or  more  individuals.  When  this  appears  to 
have  been  the  case,  such  individuals  ought  to  be  censured 
in  proportion  to  the  degree  of  criminality  that  appears 
attached  to  their  conduct.” 

Signed  C.  A.  Briggs. 


Meeting  of  May  12th,  1891. 

At  a  meeting  of  the  Presbytery  of  New  York,  held  on 
May  12th,  1891,  the  Committee  appointed  to  consider  the 
Inaugural  Address  of  Rev.  Charles  A.  Briggs,  D.D., 
presented  their  report.  A  minority  report  was  also 
presented.  The  reports  are  as  follows : 

REPORT. 

“  The  Committee  appointed  by  the  Presbytery  of  New 
York,  at  its  meeting  on  April  13,  1891,  to  consider  the 
“  Inaugural  Address  ”  of  Rev.  Charles  A.  Briggs,  D.D., 
in  its  relation  to  the  Confession  of  Faith,  would  respect¬ 
fully  report  as  follows : 


32 


The.  Committee  was  appointed  in  pursuance  of  the 
following  action  of  Presbytery  : 

“  Whereas,  The  address  of  the  Rev.  Charles  A.  Briggs, 
D.  D.,  a  member  of  this  Presbytery,  delivered  on  Monday 
evening,  January  20,  1891,  on  the  occasion  of  his  inau- 
guiation  as  the  ‘  incumbent  of  the  Edward  Robinson  Chair 
of  Biblical  Theology  5  in  the  Union  Theological  Seminary 
(which  address  has  since  been  published  by  said  Seminary), 
has  been  very  generally  criticised  as  containing  statements 
which  are  seemingly  contrary  to  the  teaching  and  spirit  of 
our  Confession  of  Faith,  and 

Whereas,  This  address  has  also  been  actually  made  the 
occasion  of  complaint  to  the  General  Assembly  by  at  least 
four  Presbyteries;  therefore, 

-Resolved,  That  a  committee  consisting  of  seven  persons 
be  appointed,  to  which  the  said  address  shall  be  referred 
for  careful  consideration,  with  instructions  to  report  at 

the  meeting  in  May  what  action,  if  any,  be  appropriate 
m  relation  thereto.” 

The  Committee  regrets  to  report  the  resignation  of  Rev 
Henry  Van  Dyke,  D.D. 

In  obedience  to  the  resolution  of  appointment  by  which 
the  investigation  was  to  be  limited  to  an  inquiry  whether 
or  not  any  portion  of  the  “  inaugural  address  ”  delivered 
by  Professor  Charles  A.  Briggs,  D.D.,  on  January  20,  1891 
is  m  conflict  with  the  Confession  of  Faith,  your  Committee 
has  made  diligent  comparison  of  the  Confession  and  the 
address.  After  making  due  allowance  for  all  reasonable 
latitude  of  interpretation  it  is  believed  that  the  address 

conflicts  with  the  Confession  in  the  portions  herein  in¬ 
dicated. 

I. 

In  the  portion  entitled  “  The  Sources  of  Divine 
Authority ,  ’  ’  extending  from  the  bottom  of  page  24,  to 


33 


the  middle  of  page  28  the  Church,  the  Reason,  and  the 
Bible  seem  to  be  regarded  as  co-ordinate  “  fountains  ”  of 
Divine  Authority.  Thus : 

(a)  Page  24,  last  sentence:  “ There  are  historically 
three  great  fountains  of  divine  authority — the  Bible,  the 
Church,  and  the  Reason.” 

(b)  Page  25,  lines  1-14  inclusive : 

“  (1)  The  Authority  of  the  Church .  The  majority  of 
Christians,  from  the  apostolic  age,  have  found  God  through 
the  Church.  Martyrs  and  saints,  fathers  and  schoolmen, 
the  profoundest  intellects,  the  saintliest  lives,  have  had 
this  experience.  Institutional  Christianity  has  been  to 
them  the  presence  chamber  of  God.  They  have  therein 
and  thereby  entered  into  communion  with  all  saints.  It 
is  difficult  for  many  Protestants  to  regard  this  experience 
as  any  other  than  pious  illusion  and  delusion.  But  what 
shall  we  say  of  a  modern  like  Newman,  who  could  not 
reach  certainty,  striving  never  so  hard,  through  the  Bible 
or  the  Reason,  but  who  did  find  divine  authority  in  the 
institutions  of  the  Church?  Shall  we  deny  it  because  it 
may  be  beyond  our  experience?  ” 

(c)  Page  27,  lines  9-21  inclusive:  “  Martineau  could 
not  find  divine  authority  in  the  Church  or  the  Bible,  but 
he  did  find  God  enthroned  in  his  own  soul.  There  are 
those  who  would  refuse  these  Rationalists  a  place  in  the 
company  of  the  faithful,  but  they  forget  that  the  essential 
thing  is  to  find  God  and  divine  certainty ,  and  if  these  men 
have  found  God  without  the  mediation  of  Church  and  Bible, 
Church  and  Bible  are  means  and  not  ends ;  they  are  avenues 
to  God,  but  are  not  God.  We  regret  that  these  Rationalists 
depreciate  the  means  of  grace  so  essential  to  most  of 
us,  but  we  are  warned  lest  we  commit  a  similar  error, 
and  depreciate  the  Reason  and  the  Christian  conscious¬ 


ness. 


34 


(cl)  Page  28,  lines  1-18  inclusive :  “  (3)  The  Authority  of 
Holy  Scripture.— We  have  examined  the  Church  and  the 
Reason  as  seats  of  divine  authority  in  an  introduction  to 
our  theme,  the  Authority  of  the  Scriptures ,  because  they 
open  our  eyes  to  see  mistakes  that  are  common  to  the 
three  departments.  Protestant  Christianity  builds  its 
faith  and  life  on  the  divine  authority  contained  in  the 
Scriptures,  and  too  often  depreciates  the  Church  and  the 
Reason  Spurgeon  is  an  example  of  the  average  modern 

twm611^1  !0Ti10ldS  th<3  Protestant  Position  and  assails 
e  Church  and  Reason  in  the  interest  of  the  authority  of 

cnpture.  But  the  average  opinion  of  the  Christian 

WTjr  d  would  not  assign  him  a  higher  place  in  the  kingdom 

of  God  than  Martmeau  or  Newman.  May  we  not  conclude, 

on  le  whole,  that  these  three  representative  Christians 

ot  our  time,  living  m  or  near  the  world’s  metropolis,  have 

each  in  his  way  found  God  and  rested  on  divine  authority  ?  ’  ’ 

hese  paragraphs,  in  the  judgment  of  the  Committee 

SecH  36  ^C°nclled  with  tlle  Confession,  Chapter  I.’ 
Section  1,  which  says:  “Although  the  light  of  nature  and 

works  of  creation  and  providence  do  so  far  manifest 

the  goodness,  wisdom  and  power  of  God  as  to  leave  men 

edaeZoT **  l°  tMt 

edge  of  God  and  of  his  will  which  is  necessary  unto 

a“dtl  m,ore “ *•"* «*•  ^ 

that  Hi  'ii  “T^’  t0  reveal  Himself  and  t0  declare 
that  Kis  will  unto  His  Church;  and  afterwards  for  the 

better  preserving  and  propagating  of  the  truth  and  for  the 

ZTnstT  eBtaraT  and  comfort  of  the  « 

S  o  the  C°r™P+tl0n  °f  the  fle^  and  the  malice  of  Satan 
of  the  world,  to  commit  the  same  wholly  unto  writing 

Sse  fo  th€  H°ly  8<yrlptUre  t0  U  necessary; 

ieonle  bJer  "***  °f  G°d’S  rCTeali»S  His  will  unto  Hi 
people  being  now  ceased.  ” 

Also  with  Section  VI.  (first  paragraph)  of  the  same  chap- 


35 


ter,  which  says :  ‘  ‘  The  whole  counsel  of  God  concerning 
all  things  necessary  for  His  oion  glory ,  maid  s  salvation , 
faith  and  life ,  is  either  expressly  set  down  in  Scripture 
or  toy  good  and  necessary  consequence  may  be  deduced 
from  Scripture ;  unto  which  nothing  at  any  time  is  to  be 
added  whether  by  new  revelations  of  the  Spirit  or  tradi¬ 
tions  of  men.” 

Also  with  Section  X.  of  Chapter  I.,  which  says  :  <£  The 
Supreme  Judge ,  by  which  all  controversies  of  religion  are 
to  be  determined,  and  all  decrees  of  councils,  opinions  of 
ancient  writers,  doctrines  of  men,  and  private  spirits  are  to 
be  examined,  and  in  whose  sentence  we  are  to  rest,  can  be 
no  other  but  the  Holy  Spirit  speaking  in  the  Scripture . 5  5 

II. 

The  portion  entitled  ‘  ‘  Inerrancy ,  ”  beginning  with  the 
last  paragraph  on  page  34,  and  continuing  to  end  of  first 
paragraph  on  page  36,  contains  the  following  statements  : 

Page  35,  lines  4-16  inclusive  :  “  I  shall  venture  to  affirm 
that,  so  far  as  I  can  see,  there  are  errors  in  the  Scriptures 
that  no  one  has  been  able  to  explain  away ;  and  the  theory 
that  they  were  not  in  the  original  text  is  sheer  assumption 
upon  which  no  mind  can  rest  with  certainty.  If  such 
errors  destroy  the  authority  of  the  Bible,  it  is  already 
destroyed  for  historians.  Men  cannot  shut  their  eyes  to 
truth  and  fact.  But  on  what  authority  do  these  theolo¬ 
gians  drive  men  from  the  Bible  by  this  theory  of  iner¬ 
rancy?  The  Bible  itself  nowhere  makes  this  claim.  The 
creeds  of  the  Church  nowhere  sanction  it.  It  is  a  ghost  of 
modern  evangelicalism  to  frighten  children.” 

The  denial  of  inerrancy  in  the  original  text  is  regarded 
by  your  Committee  as  conflicting  irreconcilably  with  the 
Confession,  Chapter  I.,  Section  I.,  which  says  :  Therefore 
it  pleased  the  Lord  *  *  *  to  commit  the  same  wholly 

unto  writing.”  *  *  Also  with  Section  II.  of  the  same 


36 


chapter,  which  says,  “Under  the  name  of  Holy  Scrip¬ 
ture,  or  the  word  of  God  written,  are  now  contained  in  all 
books  of  the  Old  and  New  Testament,  which  are  these  ” : 
(Here  follows  the  complete  list  of  books  of  the  Old  and  the 
New  Testament.) 

Respecting  these  books  Section  II.  says:  “  All  which 
are  given  by  inspiration  of  God  to  be  the  rule  of  .faith 
and  life.” 

Also  with  Section  IV.  of  the  same  chapter,  which  says : 
“  The  authority  of  the  Holy  Scripture ,  for  which  it  ought 
to  be  believed  and  obeyed,  dependeth  not  upon  the  testi¬ 
mony  of  any  man  or  Church,  but  wholly  upon  God  (who 
is  truth  itself),  the  author  thereof;  and  therefore  it  is  to 
he  received  because  it  is  the  Word  of  God” 

Also  with  Section  V.  of  the  same,  which  says:  uWe 
may  be  moved  and  induced  by  the  testimony  cf  the  Church 
to  an  high  and  reverent  esteem  for  the  Holy  Scripture; 
and  the  heavenliness  of  the  matter,  the  efficacy  of  the  doc¬ 
trine,  the  majesty  of  the  style,  the  consent  of  all  the 
parts,  the  scope  of  the  whole  (which  is  to  give  all  glory  to 
God),  the  full  discovery  it  makes  of  the  only  way  of 
man  s  salvation ,  the  many  other  incomparable  excellen¬ 
cies,  and  the  entire  perfection  thereof  are  arguments 
whereby  it  doth  abundantly  evidence  itself  to  be  the  word 
of  God ;  yet  notwithstanding  our  full  persuasion  and 
assurance  of  the  infallible  truth  and  divine  authority 
thereof ,  is  from  the  inward  work  of  the  Holy  Spirit  bear¬ 
ing  witness  by  and  with  the  word  in  onr  hearts.” 

Also  with  Section  VIII.  of  the  same  chapter,  which  says  : 

“  The  Old  Testament  in  Hebrew  (which  was  the  native 
language  of  the  people  of  God  of  old),  and  the  New  Testa¬ 
ment  in  Gieek  (which  at  the  time  of  the  writing  of  it  was 
most  generally  known  to  the  nations),  being  immediately 
'inspired  by  God ,  and  by  His  singular  care  and  providence, 
kept  pure  in  all  ages,  are  therefore  authentical ;  so  as  in  all 


37 


controversies  of  religion  the  Chnrch  is  finally  to  appeal 
unto  them.” 

As  well  as  with  Section  X.  of  the  same  chapter : 

“  The  Supreme  Judge,  by  which  all  controversies  of 
religion  are  to  be  determined,  and  all  decrees  of  councils, 
opinions  of  ancient  writers,  doctrines  of  men  and  private 
spirits  are  to  be  examined,  and  in  whose  sentence  we  are  to 
rest,  can  be  no  other  but  the  Holy  Spirit  speaking  in  the 
Scripture . 5  5 

III. 

The  portion  under  redemption  marked  (c),  beginning 
with  the  last  paragraph  on  page  53,  and  continuing  to  the 
close  of  the  first  paragraph  on  page  55,  contains  the  fol¬ 
lowing  statement : 

(a)  Page  53,  last  three  lines,  and  page  54,  lines  1-6  inclu¬ 
sive  :  ‘  ‘  Another  fault  of  Protestant  theology  is  in  its  limi¬ 
tation  of  the  process  of  redemption  to  this  world  and  its 
neglect  of  those  vast  x)eriods  of  time  which  have  elapsed 
for  most  men  in  the  Middle  State  between  death  and  the 
resurrection.  The  Roman  Catholic  Church  is  firmer  here, 
though  it  smears  the  Biblical  doctrine  with  not  a  few 
hurtful  errors.  The  reaction  against  this  limitation  as 
seen  in  the  theory  of  second  x^robation  is  not  surprising.” 

(b)  Page  54,  lines  12-14  inclusive:  “  There  is  no  au¬ 
thority  in  the  Scriptures  or  in  the  creeds  of  Christendom, 
for  the  doctrine  of  immediate  sanctification  at  death.” 

(c)  Page  54,  lines  14-31  inclusive,  and  page  55,  lines 
1-6  inclusive:  “  The  only  sanctification  known  to  exper¬ 
ience,  to  Christian  orthodoxy  and  to  the  Bible,  is  pro¬ 
gressive  sanctification.  Progressive  sanctification  after 
death  is  the  doctrine  of  the  Bible  and  the  Church ;  and  it 
is  of  vast  importance  in  our  times  that  we  should  under¬ 
stand  it  and  live  in  accordance  with  it.  The  bugbear  of  a 


38 


judgment  immediately  after  death  and  the  illusion  of  a 
magical  transformation  in  the  dying  hour  should  be 
banished  from  the  world.  They  are  conceits  derived  from 
the  Ethnic  religions,  and  without  basis  in  the  Bible  or 
Christian  experience  as  expressed  in  the  symbols  of  the 
Church.  The  former  makes  death  a  terror  to  the  best  of 
men,  the  latter  makes  human  life  and  experience  of  no 
effect ;  and  both  cut  the  nerves  of  Christian  activity  and 
striving  after  sanctification.  Renouncing  them  as  hurtful 
unchristian  errors,  we  look  with  hope  and  joy  for  the  con¬ 
tinuation  of  the  processes  of  grace  and  the  wonders  of 
redemption  in  the  company  of  the  blessed,  to  which  the 
faithful  are  all  hastening;  and  through  these  blessed 
hopes  we  enter  into  the  communion  of  all  saints  and  have 
a  happy  consciousness  of  the  one  holy  catholic  Church, 
whose  centre  and  majestic  frame  are  chiefly  in  the  skies, 
the  one  body  of  the  one  Christ.” 

Your  Committee  regard  the  statements  made  in  these 
quotations  as  irreconcilable  with  the  Confession,  Chapter 
XXXII.,  Section  I.,  which  says  :  ‘ ‘  The  bodies  of  men  after 
death  return  to  dust  and  see  corruption ;  but  their  souls 
(which  neither  die  nor  sleep),  having  an  immortal  subsist¬ 
ence,  immediately  return  to  God  who  gave  them.  The 
souls  of  the  righteous ,  being  then  made  perfect  in  holi¬ 
ness ,  are  received  into  the  highest  heavens ,  where  they 
behold  the  face  of  God  in  light  and  glory ,  waiting  for  the 
full  redemption  of  their  bodies  ;  and  the  souls  of  the 
wicked  are  cast  into  hell ,  where  they  remain  in  tor¬ 
ments  and  utter  darkness  reserved  to  the  judgment  oj 
the  great  day.  Besides  these  two  places  for  souls  sepa¬ 
rated  from  their  bodies  the  Scripture  acknowledgeth 
none.” 

Also  with  Chapter  XIII.,  Section  II.,  which  says  :  “  This 
sanctification  is  throughout  in  the  whole  man,  yet  imper¬ 
fect  in  this  life;  there  abideth  still  some  remnants  of 


39 


corruption  in  every  part,  whence  ariseth  a  continual  and 
irreconcilable  war,  the  flesh  lusting  against  the  Spirit  and 
the  Spirit  against  the  flesh.” 

The  Committee  therefore  recommends  that  the  Pres¬ 
bytery  enter  at  once  upon  the  judicial  investigation  of  the 
case.” 


G.  W.  F.  Birch, 
J.  F.  Forbes, 

J.  J.  Lampe, 

J.  J.  Stevenson, 


Committee . 


40 


APPENDIX. 


Exhibit  I.-CONFESSION. 

CHAPTER  I. 

OF  THE  HOLY  SCRIPTURE. 

Although  the  light  of  nature,  ancl 
the  works  of  creation  and  providence , 
do  so  far  manifest  the  goodness,  wis¬ 
dom,  and  power  of  God,  as  to  leave  men 
inexcusable  j  yet  they  are  not  sufficient 
to  give  that  knowledge  of  God,  and  of 
His  will,  which  is  necessary  unto  sal¬ 
vation  ;  therefore  it  pleased  the  Lord, 
at  sundry  times,  and  in  divers  man¬ 
ners,  to  reveal  Himself,  and  to  declare 
that  His  will  unto  His  Church ;  and 
afterwards  for  the  better  preserving 
and  propagating  of  the  truth,  and  for 
the  more  sure  establishment  and  com¬ 
fort  of  the  Church  against  the  corrup¬ 
tion  of  the  flesh,  and  the  malice  of 
Satan  and  of  the  world,  to  commit  the 
same  wholly  unto  writing ;  which 
maketh  the  Holy  Scripture  to  be  most 
necessary ;  those  former  ways  of  God’s 
revealing  His  will  unto  His  people  be¬ 
ing  now  ceased. 

X.  The  Supreme  Judge,  by  which 
all  controversies  of  religion  are  to  be 
determined,  and  all  decrees  of  councils, 
opinions  of  ancient  writers,  doctrines 
of  men,  and  private  spirits,  are  to  be 
examined,  and  in  whose  sentence  we 
are  to  rest,  can  be  no  other  but  the 
Holy  Spirit  speaking  in  the  Scripture. 


Exhibit  I— ADDRESS. 

Pages  24-28. 

1. — THE  SOURCES  OF  DIVINE 
AUTHORITY. 

It  is  the  testimony  of  human 
experience  in  all  ages  that  God 
manifests  Himself  to  men  and  gives 
certainty  of  His  presence  and  au¬ 
thority.  There  are  historically  three 
great  fountains  of  divine  authority — 
the  Bible,  the  Church,  and  the  Reason. 

(1 . )  The  Authority  of  the  Church.  — 
The  majority  of  Christians  from  the 
apostolic  age  have  found  God  through 
the  Church.  Martyrs  and  saints, 
fathers  and  schoolmen,  the  profoundest 
intellects,  the  saintliest  lives,  have  had 
this  experience.  Institutional  Chris¬ 
tianity  has  been  to  them  the  presence- 
chamber  of  God.  They  have  therein 
and  thereby  entered  into  communion 
icith  all  saints.  It  is  difficult  for 
many  Protestants  to  regard  this  expe¬ 
rience  as  any  other  than  pious  illusion 
and  delusion.  But  what  shall  we  say 
of  a  modern  like  Newman,  who  could 
not  reach  certainty,  striving  never  so 
hard,  through  the  Bible  or  the  Reason, 
but  ivho  did  find  divine  authority  in 
the  institutions  of  the  Church  ?  shall 
we  deny  it  because  it  may  be  beyond 
our  experience?  If  we  have  not  seen 
God  in  institutional  Christianity,  it 
is  because  the  Church  and  its  insti¬ 
tutions  have  so  enveloped  them¬ 
selves  to  us  with  human  conceits 
and  follies.  Divine  authority  has 
been  so  encased  in  the  authority 
of  popes  and  councils,  prelates  and 


41 


priests,  ecclesiastics  and  theolo¬ 
gians,  that  multitudes  have  been 
unable  to  discern  it ;  and  these 
mediators  of  redemption  have  so 
obtruded  themselves  in  the  way  of 
devout  seekers  after  God  that  they 
could  not  find  God.  Plain,  com¬ 
mon  people  have  not  been  offended 
so  much  by  this  state  of  things, 
because  they  are  accustomed  in  all 
denominations  to  identify  the  au¬ 
thority  of  God  with  the  authority 
of  priest  and  pastor,  as  a  child 
identifies  the  authority  of  the  parent 
with  the  authority  of  God ;  and  men 
of  deep  spiritual  insight  may  be 
able  to  force  their  way  through 
these  obstructions,  and  find  God  in 
spite  of  them.  But  to  men  of  the 
temperament  and  environment  of  the 
average  educated  Protestant  such  an 
experience  is  difficult,  if  not  impos¬ 
sible.  Nevertheless,  the  Church  is 
a  seat  of  divine  authority,  and  the 
multitudes  of  pious  souls  in  the 
present  and  the  past  have  not  been 
mistaken  in  their  experience  when 
they  have  found  God  in  the  Church. 

(2.)  The  Authority  of  the  Reason. — 
Another  means  used  by  God  to 
make  Himself  known  is  the  forms 
of  the  Reason,  using  Reason  in  a 
broad  sense  to  embrace  the  meta¬ 
physical  categories,  the  conscience 
and  the  religious  feeling.  Here,  in 
the  Holy  of  Holies  of  human  nature, 
God  presents  Himself  to  those  who 
seek  Him.  The  vast  multitude  of 
men  are  guided  by  God  through 
the  forms  of  the  Reason,  without 
their  having  any  consciousness  of 
His  presence  or  guidance.  There 
are  few  who  are  able  to  rise  by 
reflection  into  the  higher  conscious- 


42 


ness  of  God.  These  few  are  of  the 
mystic  type  of  religion;  the  men 
who  have  been  the  prophets  of  man¬ 
kind,  the  founders  of  religions,  the 
leaders  of  Revivals  and  Reforma¬ 
tions,  who,  conscious  of  the  divine 
presence  within  them,  and  certain 
of  His  guidance,  lead  on  confi¬ 
dently  in  the  paths  of  divine  Provi¬ 
dence.  Such  men  have  appeared 
in  all  ages  of  the  world.  Some  of 
them  have  been  the  leaders  of 
thought  in  modern  times  in  Great 
Britain,  Germany,  and  America. 
We  ought  not  to  be  surprised  that 
they  should  depreciate  the  Bible 
and  the  Church  as  merely  external 
modes  of  finding  God,  for  even  the 
prophets  of  the  Bible  attach  little 
importance  to  the  institutions  of 
Israel,  and  seldom  mention  them, 
except  to  warn  against  their  misuse. 

It  may  be  that  these  modem 
thinkers  have  a  divine  calling  to 
withdraw  men  from  mere  priest¬ 
craft,  ceremonialism,  dead  ortho¬ 
doxy  and  ecclesiasticism,  and  con¬ 
centrate  their  attention  on  the  essen¬ 
tials  of  the  Christian  religion. 

Martineau  could  not  find  divine 
authority  in  the  Church  or  the  Bible, 
but  he  did  find  Cod  enthroned  in  his 
own  soul.  There  are  those  who  would 
refuse  these  Rationalists  a  place  in  the 
company  of  the  faithful.  But  they 
forget  that  the  essential  thing  is  to 
find  God  and  divine  certainty ,  and 
if  these  men  have  found  God  with- 
out  the  mediation  of  Church  and 
Bible ,  Church  and  Bible  are  means 
and  not  ends;  they  are  avenues  to 
God,  but  are  not  God.  We  regret 
that  these  Rationalists  depreciate  the 
means  of  grace  so  essential  to  most  of 


43 


Exhibit  II—  CONFESSION. 

CHAPTER  I. 

OF  THE  HOLT  SCRIPTURE. 

Although  the  light  of  nature,  and 
the  works  of  creation  and  provi¬ 
dence,  do  so  far  manifest  the  good¬ 
ness,  wisdom,  and  power  of  God, 
as  to  leave  men  inexcusable;  yet 
are  they  not  sufficient  to  give  that 


us,  but  we  are  warned  lest  we  commit 
a  similar  error,  and  depreciate  the 
Reason  and  the  Christian  conscious¬ 
ness. 

(3.)  The  Authority  of  Holy  Scrip¬ 
ture. —  We  hare  examined  the  Church 
and  the  Reason  as  seats  of  divine 
authority  in  an  introduction  to  our 
theme ,  the  authority  of  the  Scriptures, 
because  they  open  our  eyes  to  see  mis¬ 
takes  that  are  common  to  the  three 
departments.  Protestant  Christianity 
builds  its  faith  and  life  on  the  divine 
authority  contained  in  the  Scriptures, 
and  too  often  depreciates  the  Church 
and  the  Reason.  Spurgeon  is  an 
example  of  the  average  modern  Evan¬ 
gelical,  who  holds  the  Protestant  posi¬ 
tion,  and  assails  the  Church  and  Rea¬ 
son  in  the  interest  of  the  authority  of 
Scripture.  But  the  average  opinion 
of  the  Christian  worid  would  not  as¬ 
sign  him  a  higher  place  in  the  king¬ 
dom  of  Ood  than  Martineau  or  New¬ 
man.  May  we  not  conclude,  on  the 
whole,  that  these  three  representative 
Christians  of  our  time ,  living  in  or 
near  the  world's  metropolis,  have,  each 
in  his  way,  found  God  and  rested  on 
divine  authority. 


Exhibit  II.— ADDRESS. 

Pages  34-36. 

(4.)  Inerrancy. — The  fourth  bar¬ 
rier  set  up  by  theologians  to  keep 
men  away  from  the  Bible  is  the 
dogma  of  inerrancy  of  Scripture. 
This  barrier  confronts  Historical 
Criticism.  It  is  not  a  pleasant  task 
to  point  out  errors  in  the  sacred 
Scriptures.  Nevertheless  Historical 


44 


knowledge  of  God,  and  of  His  will, 
which  is  necessary  unto  salvation ; 
therefore  it  pleased  the  Lord,  at  sun¬ 
dry  times,  and  in  divers  manners, 
to  reveal  Himself,  and  to  declare 
that  His  will  unto  his  church;  and 
afterwards  for  the  better  preserving 
and  propagating  of  the  truth,  and 
for  the  more  sure  establishment  and 
comfort  of  the  Church  against  the 
corruption  of  the  flesh,  and  the 
malice  of  Satan  and  of  the  world,  to 
commit  the  same  wholly  unto  writing; 
which  maketh  the  Holy  Scripture  to 
be  most  necessary;  those  former 
ways  of  God’s  revealing  His  will 
unto  His  people  being  now  ceased. 

II.  Under  the  name  of  Holy  Scrip¬ 
ture,  or  the  word  of  God  written,  are 
now  contained  all  the  books  of  the 
Old  and  New  Testament,  which  are 
these : 


Of  the  Old  Testament. 


Genesis. 

Ecclesiastes. 

Exodus. 

The  Song  of  Songs. 

Leviticus. 

Isaiah. 

Numbers. 

Jeremiah. 

Deuteronomy. 

Lamentations. 

Joshua. 

Ezekiel. 

Judges. 

Daniel. 

Ruth. 

Hosea. 

Samuel,  I. 

Joel. 

Samuel,  II. 

Amos. 

Kings,  I. 

Obadiah. 

Kings,  II. 

Jonah. 

Chronicles,  I. 

Micah. 

Chronicles,  II. 

Nahum. 

Ezra. 

Habakkuk. 

Nehemiah. 

Zephaniah. 

Esther. 

Haggai. 

Job. 

Zechariah. 

Psalms. 

Malachi. 

Proverbs. 

Of  the  New  Testament. 

The  Gospels  accord¬ 

Thessalonians,  II. 

ing  to 

To  Timothy,  I. 

Matthew. 

To  Timothy,  II. 

Mark. 

To  Titus. 

Criticism  finds  them,  and  we  must 
meet  the  issue  whether  they  destroy 
the  authority  of  the  Bible  or  not. 
It  has  been  taught  in  recent  years, 
and  is  still  taught  by  some  theo¬ 
logians,  that  one  proved  error 
destroys  the  authority  of  Scripture. 

I  shall  venture  to  affirm  that,  so  far 
as  I  can  see ,  there  are  errors  in  the 
Scriptures  that  no  one  has  been  able  to 
explain  away ;  and  the  theory  that 
they  were  not  in  the  original  text  is 
sheer  assumption,  upon  which  no 
mind  can  rest  with  certainty.  If  such 
errors  destroy  the  authority  of  the 
Bible,  it  is  already  destroyed  for 
historians.  Men  cannot  shut  their 
eyes  to  truth  and  fact.  But  on  what 
authority  do  these  theologians  drive 
men  from  the  Bible  by  this  theory  of 
inerrancy  f  The  Bible  itself  nowhere 
makes  this  claim.  The  creeds  of  the 
Church  nowhere  sanction  it.  It  is  a 
ghost  of  modern  evangelicalism  to 
frighten  children.  The  Bible  has 
maintained  its  authority  with  the 
best  scholars  of  our  time,  who  with 
open  minds  have  been  willing  to 
recognize  any  error  that  might  be 
pointed  out  by  Historical  Criticism; 
for  these  errors  are  all  in  the  cir¬ 
cumstantials  and  not  in  the  essen¬ 
tials  ;  they  are  in  the  human  setting, 
not  in  the  precious  jewel  itself; 
they  are  found  in  that  section  of  the 
Bible  that  theologians  commonly 
account  for  from  the  providential 
superintendence  of  the  mind  of  the 
author,  as  distinguished  from  divine 
revelation  itself.  It  may  be  that 
this  providential  superintendence 
gives  infallible  guidance  in  every 
particular;  and  it  may  be  that  it 
differs  but  little,  if  at  all,  from  the 


45 


Luke. 

John. 

The  Acts  of  the 
Apostles. 

Paul’s  Epistles  to 
the  Romans. 
Corinthians,  I. 
Corinthians,  II. 
Galatians. 
Ephesians. 
Philippians. 
Colossians. 
Thessalonians,  I. 


To  Philemon. 

The  Epistle  to  the 
Hebrews. 

The  Epistle  of 
James. 

The  first  and  second 
Epistles  of  Peter. 

The  first,  second  and 
third  Epistles  of 
John. 

The  Epistle  of  Jude. 

The  Revelation. 


All  which  are  given  by  inspiration 
of  God ,  to  be  the  rule  of  faith  and 
life. 

III.  The  books  commonly  called 
Apocrypha,  not  being  of  divine  in¬ 
spiration,  are  no  part  of  the  canon  of 
the  Scripture ;  and  therefore  are  of 
no  authority  in  the  Church  of  God, 
nor  to  be  any  otherwise  approved, 
or  made  use  of,  than  other  human 
writings. 

IY.  The  authority  of  the  Holy 
Scripture,  for  which  it  ought  to  be 
believed  and  obeyed,  dependeth  not 
upon  the  testimony  of  any  man  or 
church,  but  wholly  upon  God  (who  is 
truth  itself),  the  author  thereof ;  and 
therefore  it  is  to  be  received,  because 
it  is  the  ward  of  God. 

Y.  We  may  be  moved  and  induced 
by  the  testimony  of  the  Church  to  an 
.high  and  reverent  esteem  for  the 
Holy  Scripture;  and  the  heavenli- 
ness  of  the  matter,  the  efficacy  of  the 
doctrine,  the  majesty  of  the  style, 
the  consent  of  all  the  parts,  the 
scope  of  the  whole  (which  is  to  give 
all  glory  to  God),  the  full  discovery 
it  makes  of  the  only  way  of  man’s 
salvation,  the  many  other  incom¬ 
parable  excellencies,  and  the  entire 
perfection  thereof,  are  arguments 
whereby  it  doth  abundantly  evi- 


providential  superintendence  of  the 
fathers  and  schoolmen  and  theolo¬ 
gians  of  the  Christian  Church.  It 
is  not  important  for  our  purpose 
that  we  should  decide  this  question. 
If  we  should  abandon  the  whole 
field  of  providential  superintend¬ 
ence  so  far  as  inspiration  and  divine 
authority  are  concerned,  and  limit 
divine  inspiration  and  authority  to 
the  essential  contents  of  the  Bible, 
to  its  religion,  faith  and  morals, 
we  would  still  have  ample  room  to 
seek  divine  authority  where  alone  it 
is  essential,  or  even  important,  in 
the  teaching  that  guides  our  devo¬ 
tions,  our  thinking,  and  our  con¬ 
duct. 


46 


dence  itself  to  be  the  word  of  God  ; 
yet,  notwithstanding,  our  full  per¬ 
suasion  and  assurance  of  the  infallible 
truth,  and  divine  authority  thereof, 
is  from  the  inward  work  of  the  Holy 
Spirit,  bearing  witness  by  and  with 
the  word  in  our  hearts. 

YI.  The  whole  counsel  of  God,  con¬ 
cerning  all  things  necessary  for  his 
own  glory,  man’s  salvation,  faith, 
and  life,  is  either  expressly  set  down 
in  Scripture,  or  by  good  and  necessary 
consequence  may  be  deduced  from 
Scripture :  unto  which  nothing  at  any 
time  is  to  be  added,  whether  by  new  rev¬ 
elations  of  the  Spirit,  or  traditions  of 
men.  Nevertheless  we  acknowledge 
the  inward  illumination  of  the 
Spirit  of  God  to  be  necessary  for  the 
saving  understanding  of  such  things 
as  are  revealed  in  the  word;  and 
that  there  are  some  circumstances 
concerning  the  worship  of  God,  and 
government  of  the  church,  common 
to  human  actions  and  societies, 
which  are  to  be  ordered  by  the  light 
of  nature  and  Christian  prudence, 
according  to  the  general  rules  of  the 
word,  which  are  always  to  be  ob¬ 
served. 

VII.  All  things  in  Scripture  are 
not  alike  plain  in  themselves,  nor 
alike  clear  unto  all;  yet  those  things 
which  are  necessary  to  be  known, 
believed,  and  observed,  for  salva¬ 
tion,  are  so  clearly  propounded  and 
opened  in  some  place  of  Scripture 
or  other,  that  not  only  the  learned, 
but  the  unlearned,  in  a  due  use  of 
the  ordinary  means,  may  attain  unto 
a  sufficient  understanding  of  them. 

VIII.  The  Old  Testament  in  lie - 
breic,  (which  was  the  native  lan¬ 
guage  of  the  people  of  God  of  old,) 


47 


and  the  New  Testament  in  Greek , 
(which  at  the  time  of  the  writing 
of  it  was  most  generally  known  to 
the  nations,  being  immediately  in¬ 
spired  by  God,  and  by  his  singular 
care  and  providence,  kept  pure  in 
all  ages,  are  therefore  authentical ; 
so  as  in  all  controversies  of  religion  the 
church  is  finally  to  appeal  unto  them. 
But  because  these  original  tongues 
are  not  known  to  all  the  people  of 
God  who  have  right  unto,  and  inter¬ 
est  in  the  Scriptures,  and  are  com¬ 
manded,  in  the  fear  of  God,  to  read 
and  search  them,  therefore  they  are 
to  be  translated  into  the  vulgar 
language  of  every  nation  unto  which 
they  come,  that  the  word  of  God 
dwelling  plentifully  in  all,  they  may 
worship  Him  in  an  acceptable  man¬ 
ner,  and,  through  patience  and 
comfort  of  the  Scriptures,  may  have 
hope. 

IX.  The  infallible  rule  of  inter¬ 
pretation  of  Scripture,  is  the  Scrip¬ 
ture  itself ;  and  therefore,  wdien 
there  is  a  question  about  the  true 
and  full  sense  of  any  Scripture 
(which  is  not  manifold,  but  one),  it 
may  be  searched  and  known  by  other 
places  that  speak  more  clearly. 

X.  The  Supreme  Judge,  by  which 
all  controversies  of  religion  are  to 
be  determined,  and  all  decrees  of 
councils,  opinions  of  ancient  waiters, 
doctrines  of  men,  and  private  spirits, 
are  to  be  examined,  and  in  whose 
sentence  we  are  to  rest,  can  be  no 
other  but  the  Holy  Spirit  SDeaking 
in  the  Scripture. 


48 


EXHIBIT  III.— CONFESSION. 

CHAPTER  XIII. 

OF  SANCTIFICATION. 

They  who  are  effectually  called 
and  regenerated,  having  a  new  heart 
and  a  new  spirit  created  in  them, 
are  further  sanctified,  really  and 
personally,  through  the  virtue  of 
Christ’s  death  and  resurrection,  by 
His  word  and  Spirit  dwelling  in 
them;  the  dominion  of  the  whole 
body  of  sin  is  destroyed,  and  the 
several  lusts  thereof  are  more  and 
more  weakened  and  mortified,  and 
they  more  and  more  quickened  and 
strengthened,  in  all  saving  graces, 
to  the  practice  of  true  holiness, 
without  which  no  man  shall  see  the 
Lord. 

II.  This  sanctification  is  through¬ 
out  in  the  whole  man,  yet  imperfect 
in  this  life  :  there  abideth  still  some 
remnants  of  corruption  in  every 
part,  whence  ariseth  a  continual  and 
irreconcilable  war,  the  flesh  lusting 
against  the  Spirit,  and  the  Spirit 
against  the  flesh. 

III.  In  which  war,  although  the 
remaining  corruption  for  a  time 
may  much  prevail,  yet,  through  the 
continual  supply  of  strength  from 
the  sanctifying  Spirit  of  Christ,  the 
regenerate  part  doth  overcome :  and 
so  the  saints  grow  in  grace,  perfect¬ 
ing  holiness  in  the  fear  of  God. 

CHAPTER  XXXII. 

OF  THE  STATE  OF  MAN  AFTER  DEATH, 
AND  OF  THE  RESURRECTION  OF 
THE  DEAD. 

The  bodies  of  men ,  after  death ,  re¬ 
turn  to  dust ,  and  see  corruption  ;  but 
their  souls  ( which  neither  die  nor 


Exhibit  III.— ADDRESS. 

Pages  53-55. 

(c.)  Another  fault  of  Protestant  the¬ 
ology  is  in  its  limitation  of  the  process 
of  redemption  to  this  world,  and  its 
neglect  of  those  vast  periods  of  time 
which  have  elapsed  for  most  men  in 
the  Middle  State  between  death  and 
the  resurrection.  The  Roman  Catho¬ 
lic  Church  is  firmer  here ,  though  it 
smears  the  Biblical  doctrine  with  not 
a  few  hurtful  errors.  The  reaction 
against  this  limitation,  as  seen  in  the 
theory  of  second  probation,  is  not  sur¬ 
prising.  I  do  not  find  this  doctrine 
in  the  Bible,  but  I  do  find  in  the 
Bible  the  doctrine  of  a  Middle  State 
of  conscious  higher  life  in  the  com¬ 
munion  with  Christ  and  the  multi¬ 
tude  of  the  departed  of  all  ages; 
and  of  the  necessity  of  entire  sanc¬ 
tification,  in  order  that  the  work 
of  redemption  may  be  completed. 
There  is  no  authority  in  the  Scrip¬ 
tures,  or  in  the  creeds  of  Christendom, 
for  the  doctrine  of  immediate  sanctifi¬ 
cation  at  death.  The  only  sanctifica¬ 
tion  known  to  experience,  to  Christian 
orthodoxy,  and  to  the  Bible,  is  progres¬ 
sive  sanctification.  Progressive  sanc¬ 
tification  after  death,  is  the  doctrine 
of  the  Bible  and  the  Church ;  and  it 
is  of  vast  importance  in  our  times  that 
we  should  understand  it,  and  live  in 
accordance  with  it.  The  bugbear  of  a 
judgment  immediately  after  death,  and 
the  illusion  of  a  magical  transforma¬ 
tion  in  the  dying  hour  should  be  ban¬ 
ished  from  the  world.  They  are  con¬ 
ceits  derived  from  the  Ethnic  religions, 
and  without  basis  in  the  Bible  or 
Christian  experience  as  expressed  in 
the  symbols  of  the  Church.  The 
former  makes  death  a  terror  to  the 


49 


sleep),  having  an  immortal  subsistence, 
immediately  return  to  God  who  gave 
them.  The  souls  of  the  righteous, 
being  then  made  perfect  in  holiness , 
are  received  into  the  highest  heavens, 
where  they  behold  the  face  of  God  in 
light  and  glory,  waiting  for  the  full 
redemption  of  their  bodies  :  and  the 
souls  of  the  wicked  are  cast  into  hell, 
where  they  remain  in  torments  and 
utter  darkness,  reserved  to  the  judg¬ 
ment  of  the  great  day.  Besides  these 
two  places  for  souls  separated  from 
their  bodies,  the  Scripture  acknowl¬ 
edged  none. 

II.  At  the  last  day,  such  as  are 
found  alive  shall  not  die,  but  be 
changed :  and  all  the  dead  shall  be 
raised  up  with  the  self -same  bodies, 
and  none  other,  although  with  dif¬ 
ferent  qualities,  which  shall  be 
united  again  to  their  souls  forever. 

HI.  The  bodies  of  the  unjust 
shall,  by  the  power  of  Christ,  be 
raised  to  dishonor ;  the  bodies  of  the 
just,  by  His  Spirit,  unto  honor,  and 
be  made  conformable  to  His  own 
glorious  body. 


best  of  men,  the  latter  makes  human 
life  and  experience  of  no  effect ;  and 
both  cut  the  nerves  of  Christian  activ¬ 
ity  and  striving  after  sanctification . 
Renouncing  them  as  hurtful,  un¬ 
christian  errors,  we  look  with  hope 
and  joy  for  the  continuation  of  the 
processes  of  grace,  and  the  wonders  of 
redemption  in  the  company  of  the 
blessed,  to  ivhich  the  faithful  are  all 
hastening ;  and  through  these  blessed 
hopes  we  enter  into  the  communion  of 
all  saints,  and  have  a  happy  conscious¬ 
ness,  of  the  one  holy  catholic  Church, 
whose  centre  and  majestic  frame  are 
chiefly  in  the  skies,  the  one  body  of  the 
one  Christ. 

The  salvation  of  the  world  can  only 
mean  the  icorld  as  a  whole,  compared 
with  which  the  unredeemed  will  be  so 
few  and  insignificant,  and  evidently 
beyond  the  reach  of  redemption  by  their 
own  act  of  rejecting  it  and  hardening 
themselves  against  it,  and  by  descend¬ 
ing  into  such  depths  of  demoniacal 
depyravity  in  the  Middle  State,  that 
they  will  vanish  from  the  sight  of  the 
redeemed  as  altogether  and  irredeem¬ 
ably  evil,  and  never  more  disturb  the 
harmonies  of  the  saints. 


50 


REPORT  OF  THE  MINORITY. 

44  The  minority  of  the  Committee  appointed  by  the  Pres¬ 
bytery  to  consider  the  Inaugural  Address  of  Professor  C. 
A.  Briggs,  D.I).,  respectfully  submit  the  following  Re¬ 
port  : 

I.  In  the  first  part  of  the  address,  The  Sources  of 
Divine  Authority ,  it  is  not  sufficiently  clear  whether  the 
Bible,  the  Church,  and  the  Reason  are  regarded  as 
co-ordinate  or  not.  But  the  writer  was  speaking  as  a 
Protestant,  and  Protestants  unite  in  exalting  the  Bible 
above  the  Church  and  the  Reason.  As  a  part  of  the  in¬ 
augural  service  he  had  solemnly  subscribed  to  the  state¬ 
ment:  “I  believe  the  Scriptures  of  the  Old  and  New 
Testaments  to  be  the  Word  of  God,  the  only  infallible 
rule  of  faith  and  practice.”  And  to  avoid  being  misun¬ 
derstood  he,  throughout  the  address,  refers  to  his  other 
writings  for  a  fuller  exposition  of  his  views. 

Thus  in  his  Biblical  Study ,  p.  1 :  “  The  Bible  is  the 
chief  source  of  the  Christian  religion,  Christian  theology, 
and  Christian  life.  While  other  secondary  and  subsidiary 
sources  may  be  used  in  connection  with  this  principal 
source,  they  cannot  dispense  with  it.  For  the  Bible  con¬ 
tains  the  revelation  of  redemption.  *  *  *  Nowdiere  else 
can  such  a  redemption  be  found,  save  where  it  has  been 
derived  from  this  fountain  source,  or  from  those  sacred 
persons,  institutions  and  events  presented  to  us  in  the 
Bible.” 

(1.)  The  Authority  of  the  Church. — This  is  clearly 
stated  on  p.  63:  “  I  am  one  of  those  who  believes  that 
God  inhabits  His  Church,  and  guides  it  in  its  official  deci¬ 
sions,  not  inerrantly  in  every  utterance,  but  in  the  essen¬ 
tial  doctrines  in  which  the  universal  Church  is  in 
concord.” 

And  again,  p.  65  :  “  The  Bible,  from  the  very  nature  of 


51 


the  case,  leads  ns  through  its  forms  into  the  very  presence- 
chamber  of  God,  but  our  minds  are  filled  at  the  same  time 
with  the  historic  forms  of  the  ancient  world.  It  is  the 
office  of  the  Church,  in  the  use  of  its  institutions,  to  bring 
us  into  communion  with  the  Triune  God  in  the  forms 
of  the  modern  world,  and  give  us  the  assurance  of  His 
presence  with  the  Church  through  its  history,  and  with  us 
in  the  hour  and  moment  of  our  use  of  its  institutions. 
The  Church  unites  with  the  Bible  in  giving  us  the  assur¬ 
ance  of  God’s  presence  and  authority  throughout  history, 
Christian  as  well  as  Hebrew,  and  of  His  gracious  help  in 
the  present.  It  gives  us  the  blessed  experience  of  the 
communion  of  saints.  It  opens  the  eyes  to  see  that  we 
are  in  the  outer  ranks  of  innumerable  lines  of  the  host  of 
the  living  God,  ever  on  the  march  through  the  life  in  this 
world  into  the  gates  of  Paradise,  and  onward  on  the  high 
way  of  holiness  to  the  throne  of  God  and  the  Lamb,  which 
ever  bounds  the  horizon  of  the  beatific  vision.” 

In  this  way  “  the  majority  of  Christians  from  the  apos¬ 
tolic  age  have  found  God  through  the  Church.  Martyrs 
and  saints,  fathers  and  schoolmen,  the  profoundest  intel¬ 
lects,  the  saintliest  lives  have  had  this  experience.  Insti¬ 
tutional  Christianity  has  been  to  them  the  presence-cham¬ 
ber  of  God.  They  have  therein  and  thereby  entered  into 
communion  with  all  saints,”  p.  25. 

All  this  is  beautifully  in  accord  with  the  teaching  of  the 
Confession  concerning  the  Church.  “  Unto  the  catholic, 
visible  Church  Christ  hath  given  the  ministry,  oracles  and 
ordinances  of  God  for  the  gathering  and  perfecting  of  the 
saints  in  this  life  to  the  end  of  the  world ;  and  doth  by 
his  own  juesence  and  Spirit,  according  to  his  promise, 
make  them  effectual  thereunto.” — Chap.  XXV.,  2-3. 
And  as  to  the  Divine  Authority  in  the  Church :  ‘  ‘  The 
Lord  Jesus  as  king  and  head  of  His  Church  hath  therein 
appointed  a  government  in  the  hand  of  church  officers, 


52 


distinct  from  the  civil  magistrate.  To  these  officers  the 
keys  of  the  kingdom  of  heaven  are  committed,  by  virtue 
whereof  they  have  power  respectively  to  retain  and 
remit  sins,  to  shut  that  kingdom  against  the  impenitent, 
both  by  word  and  censures,  and  to  open  it  unto  penitent 
sinners,  by  the  ministry  of  the  Gospel,  and  by  absolu¬ 
tion  from  censures,  as  occasion  shall  require.” — Chap. 
XXX.,  1-2. 

(2.)  The  Authority  of  the  Reason ,  p.  26 — “  Another 
means  used  by  God  to  make  Himself  known  is  the  forms 
of  the  Reason,  using  Reason  in  a  broad  sense,  to  embrace 
the  metaphysical  categories,  the  conscience  and  the  relig¬ 
ious  feeling.  Here  in  the  Holy  of  Holies  of  human  nature 
God  presents  himself  to  those  who  seek  Him.”  If  the 
conscience  does  not  speak  with  a  Divine  Authority  it  has 
no  legitimate  authority.  If  God  does  not  commune  with 
man  through  the  religious  feeling,  i.  e.,  the  heart,  cojn- 
munion  with  God  is  but  a  figure  of  speech.  If  God  can¬ 
not  be  known  through  the  forms  of  the  Reason,  He  is 
unknowable,  for  even  the  Bible  comes  to  men  through  the 
forms  of  the  Reason,  and  is  addressed  to  the  understand¬ 
ing,  the  conscience  and  the  heart.  It  does  not  follow 
because  “  the  light  of  nature,  and  the  works  of  creation 
and  providence  *  *  *  are  not  sufficient  to  give  that 
knowledge  of  God  and  of  His  will,  which  is  necessary 
unto  salvation,”  that  the  Holy  Spirit,  working  in  the 
heart  and  conscience,  may  not  lead  a  man  like  Martineau 
to  a  true  belief  in  God ;  or  because  the  Holy  Scriptures 
are  “  most  necessary,”  as  one  of  the  u  outward  and  ordi¬ 
nary  means  whereby  Christ  communicateth  to  us  the  bene¬ 
fits  of  redemption,”  that  there  can  be  no  knowledge  of  God 
and  no  possibility  of  salvation  apart  from  the  Scriptures, 
for  that  is  to  affirm  that  the  whole  heathen  world,  without 
a  possible  exception,  is  lost  for  ever — a  doctrine  that  the 
Church  has  declared  needs  revision. 


53 


II.  In  regard  to  the  passage  on  Inerrancy ,  pp>.  35,  36, 
your  Committee  in  the  minority  find  nothing  in  the 
Confession  that  is  antagonized  by  it.  The  expressions  in 
Chap.  I.  :  “  By  His  singular  care  and  providence  kept  pure 
in  all  ages  and  are  therefore  authentical ;  ”  “  the  many 
other  incomparable  excellencies,  and  the  entire  perfection 
thereof,  whereby  it  doth  abundantly  evidence  itself  to  be 
the  Word  of  God ;”  “  our  full  persuasion  of  the  infallible 
truth  and  divine  authority  thereof,  ’  ’  etc. ,  all  refer  evidently 
to  the  Scriptures  as  they  now  exist  in  the  original  languages, 
not  to  the  Scriptures  as  first  committed  to  writing  in  the 
original  manuscripts.  But  no  one  claims,  and  the  Con¬ 
fession  certainly  does  not  claim,  inerrancy  for  the  Scrip¬ 
tures  in  their  present  text.  The  utmost  that  is  claimed  is 
inerrancy  for  the  original  manuscripts.  Therefore,  it  is 
submitted,  these  expressions  in  the  Confession  cannot 
mean  inerrancy. 

Nor  does  the  address  deny  the  inerrancy  of  the  original 
manuscripts.  “  I  shall  venture  to  affirm  that,  so  far  as  I 
can  see,  there  are  errors  in  the  Scriptures  that  no  one  has 
been  able  to  explain,  and  the  theory  that  they  were  not  in 
the  original  text  is  sheer  assumption,  upon  which  no  mind 
can  rest  with  certainty.”  It  is  the  dogmatic  statement  of 
inerrancy,  that  the  Scriptures  must  be  absolutely  inerrant, 
for  “  one  proved  error  destroys  their  authority  ” — that  is 
opposed  as  dangerous.  4  ‘  These  errors  are  all  in  the  circum¬ 
stantials,  and  not  in  the  essentials ;  they  are  in  the  human 
setting,  not  in  the  precious  jewel  itself ;  *  *  *  Whether 
the  divine  authority  extends  to  the  circumstantials  of  this 
divine  teaching  or  not,  it  is  unwise,  and  it  is  unchristian 
to  force  men  to  accept  the  divine  authority  of  the  Bible  or 
reject  it,  on  the  question  of  its  inerrancy  in  the  circum¬ 
stantials  and  the  details  of  every  passage,”  p.  36. 

It  is  difficult  to  avoid  misunderstanding  the  address  on 
these  points,  unless  it  is  interpreted,  as  the  writer  requests 
that  it  may  be,  by  the  light  of  his  other  writings.  The 


54 


other  side  of  Ms  position  is  there  seen.  For  example  :  In 
Biblical  Study,  p.  13,  “Our  adversaries  may  overthrow 
our  systems  of  theology,  our  confessions  and  catechisms, 
onr  church  organizations  and  methods  of  work,  for  these 
are,  after  all,  human  productions,  the  hastily  thrown  up 
outworks  of  the  truth ;  but  they  can  never  contend  success¬ 
fully  against  the  TV7ord  of  God,  that  liveth  and  abidetli 
forever,  which  though  the  heavens  fall,  and  the  earth  pass 
away,  will  not  fail  in  one  jot  or  tittle  from  the  most  com¬ 
plete  fulfillment,  which  will  shine  in  new  beauty  and  glory , 
as  its  parts  are  one  by  one  searchingly  examined,  and  which 
will  prove  itself  not  only  invincible,  but  all  conquering,  as 
point  after  point  is  most  hotly  contested.  We  are  assured 
that  at  last  it  will  claim  universal  obedience  as  the  pure 
and  faultless  mirror  of  Him  who  is  Himself  the  brightness 
of  the  Father’s  glory  and  the  express  image  of  His  per¬ 
son.”  And  p.  160  :  “  Doubtless  by  God’s  4  singular  care 
and  providence  they  have  been  kept  pure  in  all  ages  and 
are  therefore  authentical.’  Doubtless  throughout  the 
whole  work  of  the  authors’,  ‘  the  Holy  Spirit  was  present, 
causing  His  energies  to  flow  into  the  spontaneous  exercises 
of  the  writers’  faculties,  elevating  and  directing,  where 
need  be,  and  everywhere  securing  the  errorless  expression 
in  language  of  the  thought  designed  by  God.’  ” 

III.  On  p.  53  is  the  statement:  “  Another  fault  of  the 
Protestant  theology  is  the  limitation  of  the  process  of 
redemption  to  this  world,  and  the  neglect  of  those  vast 
periods  of  time,  which  have  elapsed  for  most  men  between 
death  and  the  resurrection.”  This  is  at  first  startling, 
but  only  because  of  the  somewhat  unusual,  but  perfectly 
correct,  sense  in  which  the  writer  uses  the  word  redemption. 
In  the  paragraph  immediately  preceding  he  defines  his 
usage :  “  The  Bible  rises  high  above  the  faults  of  modern 
theology,  and  comprehends  in  its  redemption  of  man  his 
justification,  sanctification  and  glorification.”  Again  on  p. 


52 :  “  The  redemption  of  the  Bible  comprehends  the  whole 
process  of  grace.  Modern  Protestants  have  unduly  empha¬ 
sized  the  beginning  of  redemption,  justification  by  faith 
alone.  ’  ’  The  statement  clearly  means,  not  that  those  who  are 
not  redeemed  in  this  life  may  be  redeemed  after  death,  but 
that  those  whose  redemption  is  begun  in  this  life,  in  their 
justification,  will  find  the  process  continued  and  completed 
in  their  perfect  sanctification  and  glorification  in  the  life 
beyond.  As  to  the  dangerous  doctrine  that  the  issues  of 
this  life  are  not  final,  that  death  is  not  decisive,  that  there 
will  be  an  opportunity  given  in  the  middle  state  for 
repentance  and  salvation ;  in  other  words,  that  there  is  a 
probation  after  death,  there  is  not  a  hint  of  it  in  the 
address.  On  the  contrary,  it  is  expressly  repudiated,  p. 
54.  All  that  is  affirmed  regarding  the  middle  state  is, 
that  the  wicked  sink  into  deeper  and  more  awful  depths  of 
depravity,  and  the  righteous  rise  to  more  blessed  heights 
of  sanctification  and  glorification.  The  interpretation  that 
the  writer  gives  to  the  teaching  of  the  confession  on  the 
subject  of  sanctification  after  death  may  or  may  not  be  cor¬ 
rect.  The  question  whether  sanctification  is  completed  in  a 
moment  ‘ £  immediately  after  death,  ”  or  in  the  state  ‘  ‘  imme¬ 
diately  after  death,”  is  not  vital  to  “  the  system  of  doctrine 
contained  in  the  Confession  of  Faith.  ”  It  is  not  sufficient, 
in  order  to  establish  charges,  to  show  that  he  is  at  variance 
with  certain  phrases  and  expressions  in  the  Confession,  but 
that  he  is  clearly  in  conflict  with  the  system  of  doctrine 
which  it  contains.  Believing  that  this  is  not  the  case,  that 
charges  based  upon  this  address  cannot  be  successfully  sus¬ 
tained,  and  that  such  a  trial  for  heresy  would  be  a  cause  of 
immeasurable  disturbance  and  injury  to  the  Church,  your 
Committee  in  the  minority  recommend  that  no  judicia 

proceedings  be  entered  upon. 

All  of  which  is  respectfully  submitted.” 

J.  H.  McIlvaine, 

Committee  in  the  Minority. 


56 


Both  the  report  of  the  Committee  and  the  minority 
report  were  read  and  accepted  : 

Whereupon  it  was  moved  that  the  recommendation  of 
the  majority  report  be  adopted,  viz. “  That  the  Presby¬ 
tery  enter  at  once  upon  the  judicial  investigation  of  the 
case.” 

It  was  moved  as  a  substitute  that  the  recommendation 
of  the  minority  report  be  adopted,  viz.  :  “That  no  judicial 
proceedings  be  entered  upon.” 

Upon  this  motion  the  calling  of  the  roll  was  ordered, 
and  the  motion  was  lost  by  the  following  vote : 


MINISTERS — AFFIRMATIVE. 


Geo.  Alexander. 

Anson  P.  Atterbury. 

W.  Wallace  Atterbury. 
Lewis  W.  Barney. 
Nicholas  Bj erring. 
Nathaniel  W.  Conkling. 
John  H.  Edwards. 
Charles  It.  Gillett. 

Henri  L.  Grandlienard. 
A.  Woodruff  Halsey. 
Win.  R.  Harshaw. 
James  H.  Hoadley. 
Daniel  E.  Lorenz. 

Wm.  M.  Martin. 

Francis  H.  Marling. 
James  H.  Mcllvaine. 


Geo.  J.  Mingins. 
Charles  H.  Parkhurst. 
John  It.  Paxton. 

Geo.  S.  Payson. 

Wm.  M.  Pice. 

Stealy  B.  Possiter. 
Frederick  N.  Putan. 
Joseph  A.  Saxton. 
Philip  Schaff. 


James  E.  Sentz. 


J.  Balcom  Shaw. 
Wilton  M.  Smith. 


Charles  L.  Thompson. 


Geo.  L.  Webster. 
Erskine  N.  White. 


—31 


ELDERS — AFFIRMATIVE. 


J.  S.  Storrs. 
Clark  Brook. 


Allan  Hay. 
Bobert  Johnston. 


4 


Affirmative 


35 


57 


MINISTERS — NEGATIVE. 


Samuel  D.  Alexander. 

Wm.  W.  Page. 

Geo.  W.  F.  Birch. 

Levi  H.  Parsons. 

Robert  R.  Booth. 

William  M.  Paxton. 

William  T.  Carr. 

Edward  P.  Payson. 

James  Chambers. 

Hugh  Pritchard. 

Conrad  Doench. 

Wendell  Prime. 

Thomas  Douglas. 

James  S.  Ramsay. 

Henry  B.  Elliot. 

Charles  S.  Robinson. 

Arthur  Folsom. 

Edward  T.  Root. 

Jesse  F.  Forbes. 

Robert  F.  Sample. 

Ferdinand  Y.  D.  Garretson. 

Joseph  Sanderson. 

Andrew  H.  Harshaw. 

Adolphus  F.  Schauffler. 

Spencer  L.  Hillier. 

Geo.  L.  Shearer. 

Joseph  R.  Kerr. 

Wm.  G.  T.  Shedd. 

Albert  B.  King. 

Andrew  Shiland. 

Joseph  J.  Lampe. 

John  M.  Stevenson. 

Sidney  G.  Law. 

William  C.  Stitt. 

John  C.  Lowrie. 

Alex.  W.  Sproull. 

Charles  P.  Mallery. 

George  L.  Spining. 

Wm.  J.  Macdowell. 

Frederick  E.  Yoegelin. 

Wm.  L.  Moore. 

John  T.  Wilds. 

James  C.  Nightingale. 

David  G.  Wylie. 

Geo.  Nixon. 

45 

ELDERS — 

-NEGATIVE. 

John  J.  McCook. 

Yincent  M.  Wilcox. 

Wm.  R.  Worrall. 

John  Denholm. 

John  J.  Stevenson. 

Moses  W.  Dodd. 

John  C.  Tucker. 

M.  E.  Sawyer. 

Kiliaen  Yan  Rensselaer. 

Francis  Rogers. 

—10 

Negative . 

55 

The  motion  to  substitute  was  declared  to  be  lost  by  a 
vote  of  55  to  35.  It  was  then  moved  that  the  recommend- 


58 


* 


ation  of  the  majority  report  be  adopted,  viz.  :  “That  the 
Presbytery  enter  at  once  upon  the  judicial  investigation  of 
the  case.”  The  motion  was  carried  by  a  vote  of  44  to  30. 

The  Rev.  Charles  A.  Briggs,  D.D.,  then  gave  notice  of 
a  protest  and  complaint  to  Synod  against  the  report  of  the 
Committee,  and  the  action  now  taken. 

On  motion,  it  was  resolved  that  a  committee  be  appointed 
to  arrange  and  prepare  the  necessary  proceedings  appro¬ 
priate  to  the  case  of  Dr.  Briggs. 

Meeting  of  May  17th,  1891. 

At  an  adjourned  meeting  of  the  Presbytery  of  New 
York,  held  May  17th,  1891 : 

The  Moderator  announced  as  the  Committee  to  arrange 
and  prepare  the  necessary  proceedings  appropriate  in  the 
case  of  Dr.  Briggs,  Rev.  Messrs.  Geo.  W.  F.  Birch,  Joseph 
J.  Lampe  and  Robert  F.  Sample,  with  Elders  John  J. 
Stevenson  and  John  J.  McCook. 

Meeting  of  June  8tii,  1891. 

At  a  meeting  of  the  Presbytery  of  New  York,  held  June 
8th,  1891 : 

The  following  letter  from  the  Rev.  Charles  A.  Briggs, 
D.D.,  to  the  stated  clerk,  dated  May  21,  1891,  was  read : 

“I  beg  you  to  make  the  following  statement  to  the 
Presbytery  of  New  York  in  my  behalf:  1.  I  made  a  writ¬ 
ten  protest  against  the  appointment  of  the  Committee  to 
investigate  my  inaugural  address.  This  protest  I  adhere 
to.  I  desire  it  to  stand  and  go  up  to  Synod  in  the  regular 
way.  2.  I  gave  notice  of  a  complaint  against  the  action 
of  the  Presbytery  based  on  the  report  of  the  Committee  of 
Investigation.  I  took  this  action  out  of  a  deep  sense  of 
the  irregularity  of  the  proceedings  and  unjust  treatment 
of  myself,  but  on  reflection  I  have  decided  to  waive  com- 


59 


plaint  to  the  Synod  as  regards  the  report  of  the  Committee 
and  the  action  of  the  Presbytery  based  thereon,  in  order 
that  I  may  not  directly  or  indirectly  be  the  occasion  of  any 
delay  in  the  advance  towards  judicial  proceedings.  As  I 
stated  to  Presbytery,  I  desire,  above  all  things,  that  my 
opponents  should  allege  charges  and  specifications,  and 
that  I  may  have  an  opportunity  of  meeting  them  in  the 
court  of  the  Presbytery  in  a  judicial  case,  as  soon  as  pos¬ 
sible.  3.  The  state  of  my  health  demands  my  absence 
from  the  country  until  the  Autumn.  But  I  trust  that  I  may 
be  able  to  meet  with  the  Presbytery  at  their  session  m 

October  next.” 

(Signed)  C.  A.  Briggs. 

On  motion,  Prof.  Briggs  was  given  the  privilege  of  with¬ 
drawing  his  complaint  as  stated  in  his  lettei . 

The  Committee  having  in  charge  the  case  of  Prof. 
Briggs  reported  as  follows  : 

‘  ‘  Y our  Committee,  appointed  at  the  May  meeting  of 
Presbytery,  to  arrange  and  prepare  the  necessary  proceed¬ 
ings  appropriate  in  the  case  of  Prof.  Briggs,  reports  progress 
and  states  its  inability  to  report  more  fully  at  this  time, 
because  four  of  its  members  have  been  occupied  with  the 
business  of  the  Gfeneral  Assembly  as  Commissioners  lepie 
senting  this  Presbytery  during  the  greater  part  of  the  time 
since  their  appointment. 

The  Committee  expects  to  be  able  to  report  at  the  next 
regular  meeting  of  Presbytery.” 

(Signed)  Gr.  W.  F.  Birch, 

Chairman. 

The  report  was  accepted  and  the  Committee  continued. 

The  Bev.  Messrs.  Alexander  W.  Sproull  and  John  H. 
Edwards,  with  Elder  Philo  S.  Ely,  were  appointed  a  Com¬ 
mittee  to  answer  the  protest  of  Prof.  Briggs  made  at  the 
last  meeting.  (May  12th,  1891.) 


60 


Meeting  of  October  5tti,  1891. 

At  a  meeting  of  the  Presbytery  of  New  York,  held 
October  5,  1891: 

The  time  having  come  in  the  order  of  business  to  receive 
the  report  of  the  Committee  of  Prosecution  in  the  case  of 
the  Rev.  Charles  A.  Briggs,  D.D.,  Rev.  Geo.  Alexander, 
D.D.,  asked  leave  to  introduce  a  resolution  germane  to  the 
subject.  Objection  having  been  made  to  departing  from  the 
order  of  business,  Dr.  George  Alexander  moved  that  the 
order  of  the  day  be  suspended  in  order  to  receive  the  res¬ 
olution  which  he  proposed  to  introduce.  Objection  was 
made  on  the  ground  that  Dr.  Birch,  as  Chairman  of  the 
Committee  of  Prosecution,  had  the  floor,  and  that  the 
motion  to  suspend  the  order  of  the  day  could  not  be  intro¬ 
duced.  The  Moderator,  having  decided  that  motion  in 
order,  appeal  was  taken  from  the  decision  of  the  Chair. 
The  Chair  was  sustained,  whereupon  Dr.  Birch  gave  notice 
of  complaint  to  Synod,  against  the  decision  of  the  Moder¬ 
ator  and  the  action  of  the  Presbytery  thereon. 

(After  recess.) 

Having  asked  permission,  it  was  resolved  that  Dr. 
George  Alexander  be  permitted  to  withdraw  his  motion  to 
postpone,  presented  by  him,  in  order  to  hear  the  report  of 
the  Committee  in  the  matter  of  Dr.  Briggs.  The  report  of 
the  Prosecuting  Committee  was  then  read  by  the  Chair¬ 
man,  Dr.  Birch,  and  is  as  follows : 


61 


THE  PRESBYTERIAN  CHURCH  IN  THE  UNITED  STATES 

OF  AMERICA 

against 

THE  REV.  CHARLES  A.  BRIGGS,  D.D. 

* 

Report  of  the  Committee  of  Prosecution. 


New  York,  October  5th,  1891. 

“  To  the  Presbytery  of  New  York  : 

The  Committee  of  Prosecution,  in  the  case  of  Dr.  Briggs, 
appointed  in  compliance  with  Section  11  of  the  Book  of 
Discipline,  at  the  meeting  of  Presbytery  in  May  last,  report 
as  follows : 

Inasmuch  as  four  of  their  number  were  absent  in  the 
performance  of  their  duties  as  commissioners  at  the  session 
of  the  General  Assembly  held  at  Detroit,  and  as  Dr.  Briggs 
had  sailed  for  Europe,  to  be  absent  until  autumn,  they 
made  a  report  of  progress  at  the  meeting  of  Presbytery  in 
June,  indicating  their  intention  of  presenting  the  charges 
and  specifications  at  the  meeting  of  Presbytery  in  Octo¬ 
ber. 

The  Committee  have  decided  to  base  charges  and  speci¬ 
fications  upon  what  is  contained  in  Dr.  Briggs’  inaugural 
address  alone.  Their  reasons  for  adopting  this  course  are 
as  follows : 

I.  By  direction  of  the  Presbytery,  the  inaugural  address 
was  the  original  subject  of  inquiry  by  the  Committee  of 
Presbytery  appointed  on  April  18,  1891,  and  it  was  upon 
the  report  of  that  Committee  that  a  judicial  investigation 
was  instituted. 

II.  Because  of  the  recent  publication  of  the  inaugural 
address.  In  this  way  any  objection  which  might  be  made,. 


62 


under  the  limitation  of  Section  117  of  the  Book  of  Disci¬ 
pline,  as  to  the  length  of  time  which  has  elapsed  since  the 
publication  of  earlier  works,  has  been  avoided. 

III.  Because  the  inaugural  address  may  be  regarded  as 
the  most  deliberate  and  emphatic  expression  of  Dr.  Briggs’ 
doctrine,  and  therefore  representing  most  fairly  his  posi¬ 
tion  with  respect  to  those  doctrines  upon  which  the  charges 
and  specifications  are  based.  Since  the  inaugural  address 
was  first  delivered  and  published,  it  has  been  widely  criti¬ 
cised,  but,  in  spite  of  these  criticisms,  a  second  edition 
has  been  published,  in  which  all  the  doctrines  set  forth  in 
the  first  edition  are  presented  without  modification,  being 
rather  reaffirmed  and  emphasized  in  a  preface  and  in  an 
appendix. 

IY.  Because  of  the  vital  importance  of  the  doctrines 
with  which  the  inaugural  address  deals. 

Y .  Because  the  address  was  delivered  as  an  introduction 
to  a  course  of  lectures  on  Biblical  theology,  and  is  there¬ 
fore  to  be  taken  as  a  formal  declaration  of  the  Professor’s 
attitude  with  respect  to  some  of  the  more  imjDortant  sub¬ 
jects  in  his  new  department. 

It  has  been  decided  by  your  Committee  that  it  is  neither 
necessary  nor  advisable  to  embrace  in  the  list  of  charges  all 
the  doctrinal  errors  contained  in  the  inaugural  address, 
and,  while  its  teachings  respecting  miracles,  the  original 
condition  of  man,  the  nature  of  sin,  race  redemption  and 
Dr.  Briggs’  scheme  of  Biblical  theology  in  general,  are  not 
in  harmony  with  the  Scriptures,  and  are  calculated  to 
weaken  confidence  in  the  Word  of  God,  and  to  encourage 
presumption  on  the  clemency  and  long-suffering  of  God, 
yet  in  order  that  we  may  avoid  an  undue  extension  of  the 
trial,  and  the  confusion  of  thought  that  might  follow  an 
attempt  to  compass  all  the  errors  contained  in  said  address, 


63 


we  have  deemed  it  best  to  confine  attention  to  a  few  de¬ 
partures  from  the  teachings  of  the  Scriptures  which  are 
fundamental  to  the  entire  discussion. 

Furthermore,  your  Committee  is  not  unmindful  of  the 
fact  that  the  erroneous  and  ill-advised  utterances  of  Dr. 
Briggs  in  the  inaugural  address  have  seriously  disturbed 
the  peace  of  the  Church  and  led  to  a  situation  full  of  diffi¬ 
culty  and  complication,  and  have  produced  such  wide¬ 
spread  uneasiness  and  agitation  throughout  the  Church  as 
to  cause  sixty -three  Presbyteries  to  overture  the  General 
Assembly  with  reference  to  the  same,  yet  for  the  reasons 
above  given  we  have  determined  not  to  include  this  grave 
offence  against  the  peace  of  the  Church  in  the  list  of  formal 

charges. 

The  Committee  present  the  following  charges  and  specifi¬ 
cations,  which,  in  compliance  with  the  provisions  of  Sec¬ 
tion  10  of  the  Book  of  Discipline,  it  becomes  their  duty  to 
prosecute  in  the  name  and  by  the  authority  of  the  Presby¬ 
terian  Church  of  the  United  States  of  America. 

(Here  followed  the  charges  and  specifications,  for  which 
see  page  70.) 

Your  Committee  recommend  that  in  compliance  with  the 
provisions  of  Section  19  of  the  Book  of  Discipline,  a  copy 
of  the  charges  and  specifications  be  now  served  upon  Di. 
Briggs,  and  that  a  citation,  signed  in  the  name  of  the 
Presbytery  by  the  Moderator  or  Clerk,  be  personally  served 
upon  Dr.  Briggs,  citing  him  to  appear  and  plead  to  said 
charges  and  specifications  at  an  early  day. 

All  of  which  is  respectfully  submitted.” 

In  behalf  of  the  Committee, 

G.  W.  F.  Birch,  Chairman. 


64 


The  report  was  accepted.  It  was  then  moved  that  the 
recommendations  of  the  Committee  be  adopted. 

The  paper  presented  by  the  Rev.  George  Alexander,  at 
the  morning  session,  was  now  offered  as  a  substitute  for 
the  recommendations  of  the  Committee. 

The  reading  of  the  substitute  was  called  for,  and  is  as 
follows : 

“ Whereas ,  the  Presbytery  of  New  York,  at  its  meeting 
in  May  last,  on  account  of  utterances  contained  in  an 
inaugural  address  delivered  January  20th,  1891,  appointed 
a  Committee  to  formulate  charges  against  the  author  of 
that  address,  Rev.  Charles  A.  Briggs,  D.D. ;  and, 

‘  ‘  Whereas,  since  that  action  was  taken,  the  accused  has 
supplemented  those  utterances  by  responding  to  certain 
categorical  questions,  as  follows : 

“  ‘  Question  I.  Do  you  consider  the  Bible,  the  Church 
and  the  Reason  as  co-ordinate  sources  of  authority  ? 

Answer.  No. 

Or  do  you  believe  the  Scriptures  of  the  Old  and  New 
Testament  to  be  the  only  infallible  rule  of  faith  and 
practice  ? 

Answer.  Yes. 

Question  II.  When  you  use  the  word  4  c  reason  ’  ’  do  you 
include  the  conscience  and  the  religious  feeling  ? 

Answer.  Yes. 

Question  III.  Would  you  accept  the  followiDg  as  a 
satisfactory  definition  of  inspiration  ?  Inspiration  is  such 
a  divine  direction  as  to  secure  an  infallible  record  of  God’s 
revelation  in  respect  to  both  fact  and  doctrine  ? 

Answer.  Yes. 

Question  IV.  Do  you  believe  the  Bible  to  be  inerrant  in 
all  matters  concerning  faith  and  practice,  and  in  every¬ 
thing  in  which  it  is  a  revelation  from  God,  or  a  vehicle  of 
divine  truth,  and  that  there  are  no  errors  that  disturb  its 


65 


infallibility  in  these  matters,  or  in  its  records  of  the  his¬ 
toric  events  and  institutions  with  which  they  are  insepa¬ 
rably  connected  ? 

Answer.  Yes. 

Question  V.  Do  yon  believe  that  the  miracles  recorded  in 
Scripture  are  due  to  an  extraordinary  exercise  of  divine 
energy  either  directly  or  mediately  through  holy  men  ? 

Answer.  Yes. 

Question  VI.  Do  you  hold  what  is  commonly  known  as 
the  doctrine  of  a  future  probation  ?  Do  you  believe  in 
purgatory  ? 

Answer.  No. 

Question  VII.  Do  you  believe  that  the  issues  of  this 
life  are  final,  and  that  a  man  who  dies  impenitent  will 
have  no  further  opportunity  of  salvation  ? 

Answer.  Yes. 

Question  VIII.  Is  your  theory  of  progressive  sanctifica¬ 
tion  such  that  it  will  permit  you  to  say  that  you  believe 
that  when  a  man  dies  in  the  faith,  he  enters  the  middle 
state,  regenerated,  justified  and  sinless  ? 

Answer.  Yes.’ 

Therefore,  Resolved ,  that  Presbytery  without  pronounc¬ 
ing  on  the  sufficiency  of  these  later  declarations  to  cover 
all  the  points  concerning  which  the  accused  has  been  called 
in  question,  with  hearty  appreciation  of  the  faithful 
labours  of  the  Committee,  deems  it  expedient  to  arrest  the 
judicial  proceedings  at  this  point,  and  hereby  discharges 
the  Committee  from  further  consideration  of  the  case.” 

Upon  this  substitute  the  ayes  and  nays  were  called  for, 
and  the  substitute  was  lost  by  a  vote  of  64  to  60,  as 
follows : 


66 


MINISTERS 

Geo.  Alexander. 

Antonio  Arrighi. 

Anson  P.  Atterbnry. 
Lewis  W.  Barney. 

John  C.  Bliss. 

Francis  Brown. 

James  Chambers. 

Edward  L.  Clark. 

John  H.  Edwards. 

Frank  F.  Ellin  wood. 
William  T.  Elsing. 

Henry  M.  Field. 

Jesse  F.  Forbes. 

Herbert  Ford. 

Charles  R.  Gillett. 

Henri  L.  Grandlienard. 

A.  Woodruff  Halsey. 
Richard  D.  Harlan. 
Thomas  S.  Hastings. 
Edward  W.  Hitchcock. 
James  H.  Hoadley. 

Sam’l  M.  Jackson. 

Joseph  R.  Kerr. 
Bartolomew  Kriisi. 

ELDERS 

William  A.  Ewing. 
Charles  0.  Kimball. 
Charles  A.  Woodbury. 
Samuel  Reeve. 

Henry  Bruning. 

Frederick  M.  Robinson. 


-AFFIRMATIVE. 

Daniel  E.  Lorenz. 

Francis  H.  Marling. 

Henry  M.  McCracken. 

Henry  T.  McEwen. 

James  H.  Mcllvaine. 

Duncan  J.  McMillan. 

Geo.  J.  Mingins. 

Daniel  H.  Overton. 

Charles  H.  Parkhurst. 

Stealy  B.  Rossiter. 

Albert  G.  Ruliffson. 

Joseph  A.  Saxton. 

Philip  Schaff. 

James  E.  Sentz. 

J.  Balcom  Shaw. 

Andrew  Shiland. 

Geo.  L.  Spining. 

Charles  L.  Thompson. 
Charles  H.  Tyndall. 

Henry  Van  Dyke. 

Marvin  R.  Vincent. 

George  S.  Webster. 

Erskine  N.  White. 

William  M.  Martin.  —48 

AFFIRM!  ATI  VE. 

Nelson  M.  Whipple. 

Vincent  M.  Wilcox. 

R.  T.  B.  Easton. 

William  A.  Wheelock. 
Sidney  F.  Wilcox. 

George  R.  Aitkin.  — 12 


Affirmative 


60 


67 


MINISTERS — NEGATIVE. 


Sam’l  D.  Alexander. 
William  H.  Beacli. 
Nicholas  Bj erring. 

Robert  R.  Booth. 

Samuel  Boult. 

William  T.  Carr. 

Charles  J.  Collins. 

Ira  S.  Dodd. 

Conrad  Doench. 

Thomas  Douglas. 

Henry  B.  Elliot. 

Arthur  Folsom. 

John  Hall. 

Spencer  L.  Hillier. 
Augustus  D.  L.  Jewett. 
Albert  B.  King. 

Joseph  Sanderson. 
Adolphus  F.  Schauffler. 
George  L.  Shearer. 
William  C.  Stitt. 

Charles  A.  Stoddard. 

J.  Ford  Sutton. 

ELDERS 

John  C.  Tucker. 

Andrew  Robinson. 

Robert  Beggs. 

Richard  H.  Bull. 

Herman  Zincke. 

Frederick  Blume. 

Francis  Rogers. 

Joseph  Moorhead. 

Francis  B.  Griffin. 

M.  E.  Fox. 


Joseph  J.  Lampe. 
Sidney  G.  Law. 

Joseph  P.  Lestrade. 
John  C.  Lowrie. 

Wm.  J.  Macdowell. 
Charles  P.  Mallery. 
Horace  G.  Miller. 
James  C.  Nightingale. 
George  Nixon. 

Levi  H.  Parsons. 
Edward  P.  Pay  son. 
Wendell  Prime. 

Hugh  Pritchard. 

James  S.  Ramsay. 
Charles  S.  Robinson. 
Robert  F.  Sample. 
Alexander  W.  Sproull. 
Frederick  E.  Yoegelin. 
Thomas  G.  Wall. 

John  T.  Wilds. 

Abbott  L.  R.  Waite. 
David  G.  Wylie. 

NEGATIVE. 

Thomas  Anderson. 
Wm.  M.  Onderdonk. 
Henry  B.  Caithness. 
John  Denham. 

Wm.  R.  Worrall. 

E.  W.  Thompson. 

J.  L.  Birdsall. 

John  McKennan. 

James  B.  Lindsley. 
Theodore  Mise. 


14 


20 


Negative 


64 


68 


The  recommendation  contained  in  the  report  of  the 
Committee  of  Prosecution,  in  the  matter  of  Dr.  Briggs, 
was  then  adopted,  it  is  as  follows : 

“  Your  Committee  recommend  that  in  compliance  with 
the  provisions  of  Section  19  of  the  Book  of  Discipline, 
a  copy  of  the  charges  and  specifications  be  now  served 
upon  Dr.  Briggs,  and  that  a  citation,  signed  in  the  name 
of  the  Presbytery  by  the  Moderator  or  Clerk,  be  person¬ 
ally  served  upon  Dr.  Briggs,  citing  him  to  appear  and 
plead  to  said  charges  and  specifications  at  an  early  day .  ’  ’ 

Meeting  of  October  6th,  1891. 

At  a  meeting  of  the  Presbytery  of  New  York,  held 
October  6,  1891,  the  Committee  to  answer  the  protest  of 
Dr.  Briggs  reported  as  follows : 

“  The  Committee  appointed  by  Presbytery  at  its  Session, 
June  8th,  1891,  to  answer  the  protest  presented  by  the 
Rev.  Charles  A.  Briggs  on  the  11th  of  May,  against  the 
action  of  Presbytery  on  the  13th  of  April,  appointing 
a  Committee  to  examine  his  Inaugural  Address  delivered 
in  the  Chapel  of  Union  Theological  Seminary,  on  the 
occasion  of  his  introduction  to  the  Professorship  of  Bibli¬ 
cal  Theology  in  that  Institution,  and  to  report  as  to  its 
relations  to  the  Confession  of  Faith,  present  the  following 
report : 

Inasmuch  as  said  protest  is  based  mainly  on  the  assump¬ 
tion  that  the  action  of  Presbytery  was  the  inauguration  of 
a  judicial  process,  and  the  points  raised  in  the  protest 
contemplate  process  as  already  commenced,  and  the  laws 
quoted  apply  to  cases  of  actual  process  only,  it  is  a  suf¬ 
ficient  answer  that  no  charges  had  been  presented  when 
the  protest  was  made,  and  no  thought  of  process  neces¬ 
sarily  entertained. 

The  Committee  appointed  by  Presbytery  was  one  of 


69 


inquiry  only,  its  duty  being  expressly  defined  “  to  con¬ 
sider  the  Inaugural  Address  of  Rev.  Charles  A.  Briggs  in 
its  relations  to  the  Confession  of  Faith,”  which  Inaugural 
had  been  and  continued  to  be  the  subject  of  very  general 
criticism  and  of  wide-spread  distrust,  and  of  whose  appar¬ 
ent  teaching  a  number  of  Presbyteries  had  already 
expressed  the  most  emphatic  adverse  judgment. 

This  Committee  had  not  to  deal  with  Dr.  Briggs  per¬ 
sonally,  but  with  the  contents  of  an  address,  publicly  and 
officially  made  by  him,  and  extensively  circulated  with 
his  sanction. 

If  this  address  was  misunderstood  or  misrepresented, 
and  for  this  reason  opinions  or  doctrines  were  ascribed  to 
Dr.  Briggs  that  were  prejudicial,  and  on  the  ground  of 
which  his  fitness  as  a  teacher  of  Biblical  Theology  in  a 
Seminary  of  the  Presbyterian  Church  was  called  in  ques¬ 
tion,  it  surely  was  of  the  first  importance,  and  an  act  of 
justice  to  Prof.  Briggs,  that  his  Presbytery  should  inquire 
into  the  matter,  and  if  the  allegations  were  unwarranted, 
be  among  the  first  to  come  to  his  defence. 

Moreover,  such  a  committee  of  inquiry  was  warranted 
both  by  the  constant  practice  of  ecclesiastical  bodies,  and 
by  the  constitution  of  the  Church,  which  gives  to  the 
Presbyteries  the  right  to  watch  “  the  personal  and  profes¬ 
sional  conduct  ”  of  its  ministers.  Book  of  Dicipline,  Qh. 
vii.  36. 

That  the  views  herein  presented  were  those  held  by  Dr. 
Briggs  is  clear  from  his  reply  to  an  invitation  sent  to  him 
by  Dr.  Birch,  Chairman  of  the  Committee,  under  date  of 
April  24,  1891,  inviting  him  to  meet  with  the  Committee 
for  conference,  and  to  give  such  explanations  as  he  might 
desire,  in  which  he  says  “  If  I  were  in  good  health,  I 
would  still  be  obliged  to  decline,  for  the  reason  that  it 
would  seem  that  your  Committee  were  appointed  to  con¬ 
sider  my  inaugural  address,  and  not  to  consider  any 


70 


explanations  of  it  I  might  desire  to  make  ’ 5  (reply  to 
Dr.  Birch). 

For  the  above  reasons  it  is  the  judgment  of  this  Presby¬ 
tery  that  its  action  was  fully  in  accord  with  constitutional 
requirements,  and  with  the  usages  of  the  denomination, 
and  was  in  the  interest  of  justice  and  sound  discipline.” 

The  report  was  accepted  and  adopted. 

By  agreement  between  Dr.  Briggs  and  the  Prosecuting 
Committee,  it  was 

Resolved,  that  the  4th  day  of  November,  1891,  at  10 
A.  M.,  be  fixed  as  the  day  on  which  the  citation  is 
returnable,  and  that  the  citation  be  issued  for  that  date, 
in  accordance  with  Section  19  of  the  Book  of  Discipline. 

It  was  resolved  that  the  meeting  on  the  4th  of  November 
be  held  in  the  audience  room  of  the  Scotch  Church,  and 
that  sufficient  space  for  the  Presbytery  be  reserved.  The 
Moderator,  permanent  and  temporary  Clerks,  and  Elder 
Caithness  be  a  Committee  to  have  in  charge  all  the 
arrangements  for  the  accommodation  of  the  Presbytery  at 
the  trial. 

A  certified  copy  of  the  Charges  and  Specifications,  and 
the  Citation  were  then  delivered  by  the  Moderator  to  Dr. 
Briggs  in  the  presence  of  the  Presbytery.  They  are  as 
follows : 

CHARGES  AND  SPECIFICATIONS. 

Chakge  I. 

The  Presbyterian  Church  in  the  United  States  of 
America  charges  the  Reverend  Charles  A.  Briggs,  D.D., 
being  a  Minister  of  the  Presbyterian  Church,  and  a 
member  of  the  Presbytery  of  New  York,  with  teaching 
doctrines  which  conflict  irreconcilably  with  and  are 
contrary  to  the  cardinal  doctrine  taught  in  the  Holy 


71 


Scriptures  and  contained  in  tire  Standards  of  tlie  Presby¬ 
terian  Church,  that  the  Scriptures  of  the  Old  and  New 
Testaments  are  the  only  infallible  rule  of  faith  and 

practice. 

These  hurtful  errors,  striking  at  the  vitals  of  religion, 
and  contrary  to  the  regulations  and  practice  of  the 
Presbyterian  Church,  were  promulgated  in  an  inaugural 
address  which  Dr.  Briggs  delivered  at  the  Union  Theolog¬ 
ical  Seminary  in  the  City  of  New  York,  January  20th, 
1891,  on  the  occasion  of  his  induction  into  the  Edward 
Robinson  Chair  of  Biblical  Theology,  which  address  has, 
with  Dr.  Briggs’  approval,  been  published  and  extensively 
circulated,  and  republished  in  a  second  edition  with  a 
preface  and  an  appendix. 

SPECIFICATION  I 

Dr.  Briggs  declares  that  “  there  are  historically  thr^e 
great  fountains  of  divine  authority  the  Bible,  the  Church 
and  the  Reason  ” — thus  making  the  Church  and  the 
Reason  each  to  be  an  independent  and  sufficient  fountain 
of  divine  authority. 

INAUGURAL  ADDRESS. 

Page  25,  “  The  majority  of  Christians  from  the  apostolic 
age  have  found  God  through  the  Church.  Martyrs  and 
saints,  fathers  and  schoolmen,  the  profoundest  intellects, 
the  saintliest  lives,  have  had  this  experience.” 

Page  26,  “  Nevertheless,  the  Church  is  a  seat  of  divine 
authority,  and  the  multitudes  of  pious  souls  in  the  present 
and  the  past  have  not  been  mistaken  in  their  experience 
when  they  have  found  God  in  the  Church. 

Page  26,  “  Another  means  used  by  God  to  make  Him¬ 
self  known  is  the  forms  of  the  Reason,  using  Reason  in  a 
broad  sense  to  embrace  the  metaphysical  categoiies,  the 
conscience  and  the  religious  feeling.  Here,  in  the  Holy 


72 


of  Holies  of  human  nature,  God  presents  himself  to  those 
who  seek  Him.” 

Page  28,  “We  have  examined  the  Church  and  the 
Reason  as  seats  of  divine  authority  in  an  introduction  to 
our  theme,  the  Authority  of  the  Scriptures,  because  they 
open  our  eyes  to  see  mistakes  that  are  common  to  the 
three  departments.  Protestant  Christianity  builds  its 
faith  and  life  on  the  divine  authority  contained  in  the 
Scriptures,  and  too  often  depreciates  the  Church  and  the 
Reason.” 

Page  86,  “But  preferring  to  use  my  limited  time  in 
opposing  the  depreciation  of  the  Church  and  the  Reason, 
too  often  characteristic  of  Protestants;  and  in  an  effort 
briefly  to  state,  as  a  fact  of  history,  that  these  are  sources 
of  divine  authority.” 

These  declarations  are  contrary  to  the  Scripture : 

Isa.  viii.  20.  To  the  law  and  to  the  testimony :  If  they 
speak  not  according  to  this  word,  it  is  because  there  is  no 
light  in  them. 

Ps.  cxix.  96.  I  have  seen  an  end  of  all  perfection :  lout 
thy  commandment  is  exceeding  broad. 

Gal.  i,  8,  9. — 8  But  though  we,  or  an  angel  from 
heaven,  preach  any  other  gosx>el  unto  you  than  that  which 
we  have  preached  unto  you,  let  him  be  accursed.  9  As  we 
said  before,  so  say  I  now  again,  If  any  man  preach  any 
other  gospel  unto  you  than  that  ye  have  received,  let  him 
be  accursed. 

Matt.  iv.  4,  7,  10. — 4  But  he  answered  and  said,  It  is 
written,  Man  shall  not  live  by  bread  alone,  but  by  every 
word  that  proceedeth  out  of  the  mouth  of  God.  7  Jesus 
said  unto  him,  It  is  written  again,  Thou  shalt  not  tempt 
the  Lord  thy  God.  10  Then  saith  Jesus  unto  him,  Get 
thee  hence,  Satan ;  for  it  is  written,  Thou  shalt  worship 
the  Lord  thy  God,  and  him  only  shalt  thou  serve. 


/ 


73 


Matt.  y.  19.  Whosoever  therefore  shall  break  one  of 
these  least  commandments,  and  shall  teach  men  so,  he 
shall  be  called  the  least  in  the  kingdom  of  heaven ;  but 
whosoever  shall  do  and  teach  them  the  same  shall  be 
called  great  in  the  kingdom  of  heaven. 

Matt.  vii.  24.  Therefore  whosoever  heareth  these  say¬ 
ings  of  mine,  and  doeth  them,  I  will  liken  him  nnto  a 
wise  man,  which  built  his  house  upon  a  rock. 

Matt.  xxii.  29,  31,  36,  40. — 29  Jesus  answered  and  said 
unto  them,  Ye  do  err,  not  knowing  the  Scriptures,  nor 
the  power  of  God.  31  But  as  touching  the  resurrection 
of  the  dead,  have  ye  not  read  that  which  was  spoken  unto 
you  by  God,  saying,  36  Master,  which  is  the  great  com¬ 
mandment  in  the  law?  40  On  these  two  commandments 
hang  all  the  law  and  the  prophets. 

Mark  vii.  7,  13. — 7  Howbeit  in  vain  do  they  worship 
me,  teaching  for  doctrines  the  commandments  of  men.  13 
Making  the  word  of  God  of  none  effect  through  your 
tradition,  which  ye  have  delivered :  and  many  such  like 
things  do  ye. 

Acts  vii.  38.  This  is  he,  that  was  in  the  church  in  the 
wilderness  with  the  angel  which  spake  to  him  in  the 
mount  Sina,  and  with  our  fathers :  who  received  the  lively 
oracles  to  give  unto  us. 

Acts  xvii.  11.  These  were  more  noble  than  those  in 
Thessalonica,  in  that  they  received  the  word  with  all  readi¬ 
ness  of  mind,  and  searched  the  Scriptures  daily,  whether 
those  things  were  so. 

1.  Pet.  iv.  11.  If  any  man  speak,  let  him  speak  as  the 
oracles  of  God ;  if  any  man  minister,  let  him  do  it  as  of 
the  ability  which  God  giveth ;  that  God  in  all  things  may 
be  glorified  through  Jesus  Christ:  to  whom  be  praise  and 
dominion  for  ever  and  ever.  Amen. 

1  John  v.  10.  He  that  belie veth  on  the  Son  of  God 
hath  the  witness  in  himself :  he  that  believeth  not  God 


74 


hath,  made  him  a  liar ;  because  he  believeth  not  the  record 
that  God  gave  of  his  Son. 

Luke  i.  3,  4.-3  It  seemed  good  to  me  also,  having  had 
perfect  understanding  of  all  things  from  the  very  first,  to 
write  unto  thee  in  order,  most  excellent  Theophilus,  4 
That  thou  mightest  know  the  certainty  of  those  things, 
wherein  thou  hast  been  instructed. 

2  Pet.  i.  19,  21. — 19  We  have  also  more  sure  word  of 
prophecy  :  whereunto  ye  do  well  that  ye  take  heed,  as  unto 
a  light  that  shineth  in  a  dark  place,  until  the  day  dawn, 
and  the  day  star  arise  in  your  hearts.  21  For  the  pro¬ 
phecy  came  not  in  old  time  by  the  will  of  man :  but  holy 
men  of  God  spake  as  they  were  moved  by  the  Holy  Ghost. 

Gal.  iii.  8  to  16.— 8  And  the  Scripture  foreseeing  that 
God  would  justify  the  heathen  through  faith,  preached 
before  the  gospel  unto  Abraham,  saying ,  In  thee  shall  all 
nations  be  blessed.  9  So  then  they  which  be  of  faith  are 
blessed  with  faithful  Abraham.  10  For  as  many  as  are  of 
the  works  of  the  law  are  under  the  curse  :  for  it  is  written, 
Cursed  is  every  one  that  continueth  not  in  all  things  which 
are  written  in  the  book  of  the  law  to  do  them.  11  But 
that  no  man  is  justified  by  the  law  in  the  sight  of  God,  it 
is  evident :  for,  The  just  shall  live  by  faith.  12  And  the 
law  is  not  of  faith :  but,  The  man  that  doeth  them  shall 
live  in  them.  13  Christ  hath  redeemed  us  from  the  curse 
of  the  law,  being  made  a  curse  for  us :  for  it  is  written, 
Cursed  is  every  one  that  hangeth  on  a  tree :  14  That  the 
blessing  of  Abraham  might  come  on  the  Gentiles  through 
Jesus  Christ ;  that  we  might  receive  the  promise  of  the 
Spirit  through  faith.  15  Brethren,  I  speak  after  the  man¬ 
ner  of  men;  Though  it  be  but  a  man’s  covenant,  yet  if  it 
be  confirmed,  no  man  disannulleth,  or  addeth  thereto.  16 
How  to  Abraham  and  his  seed  were  the  promises  made. 
He  saith  not,  And  to  seeds,  as  of  many ;  but  as  of  one, 
And  to  thy  seed,  which  is  Christ. 


75 


John  v.  39.  Search  the  Scriptures,  for  in  them  ye  think 
ye  have  eternal  life  :  and  they  are  they  which  testify  of  me. 

Dent.  iv.  2.  Ye  shall  not  add  unto  the  word  which  I 
command  you,  neither  shall  ye  diminish  aught  from  it, 
that  ye  may  keep  the  commandments  of  the  Lord  your 
God  which  I  command  you. 

Deut.  xii.  32.  What  thing  soever  I  command  you,  ob¬ 
serve  to  do  it :  thou  shalt  not  add  thereto,  nor  diminish 
from  it. 

Rev.  xxii.  19.  And  if  any  man  shall  take  away  from 
the  words  of  the  book  of  this  prophecy,  God  shall  take 
away  his  part  out  of  the  book  of  life,  and  out  of  the  holy 
city,  and  from  the  things  which  are  written  in  this  book. 

Jer.  xxiii.  22.  But  if  they  had  stood  in  my  counsel, 
and  had  caused  my  people  to  hear  my  words,  then  they 
should  have  turned  them  from  their  evil  way,  and  from 
the  evil  of  their  doings. 

Jer.  viii.  8,  9. — 8  How  do  ye  say,  We  are  wise,  and  the 
law  of  the  Lord  is  with  us?  Lo,  certainly  in  vain  made 
he  it;  the  pen  of  the  scribes  is  in  vain.  9  The  wise  men 
are  ashamed,  they  are  dismayed  and  taken  :  lo,  they  have 
rejected  the  word  of  the  Lord  ;  and  what  wisdom  is  in 
them? 

Rom.  iii.  2.  Much  every  way :  chiefly,  because  that 
unto  them  were  committed  the  oracles  of  God. 

Acts  xviii.  28.  For  he  mightily  convinced  the  Jews, 
and  that  publicly,  shewing  by  the  Scriptures  that  Jesus 
was  Christ. 

These  declarations  are  contrary  to  our  Standards, 
Confession  of  Faith,  Chap.  I.,  Secs.  I.,  II.,  VIII.,  X. 

I.  Although  the  light  of  nature,  and  the  works  of  crea¬ 
tion  and  providence,  do  so  far  manifest  the  goodness,  wis¬ 
dom  and  power  of  God,  as  to  leave  men  inexcusable ;  yet 
they  are  not  sufficient  to  give  that  knowledge  of  God,  and 


76 


of  his  will,  which  is  necessary  unto  salvation ;  therefore 
it  pleased  the  Lord,  at  sundry  times,  and  in  divers  man¬ 
ners,  to  reveal  himself,  and  to  declare  that  his  will  nnto 
his  church ;  and  afterwards,  for  the  better  preserving  and 
propagating  of  the  truth,  and  for  the  more  sure  establish¬ 
ment  and  comfort  of  the  church  against  the  corruption  of 
the  flesh,  and  the  malice  of  Satan  and  of  the  world,  to 
commit  the  same  wholly  unto  writing ;  which  maketh  the 
Holy  Scripture  to  be  most  necessary ;  those  former  ways  of 
God’s  revealing  his  will  unto  his  people  being  now  ceased. 

II.  Under  the  name  of  Holy  Scripture,  or  the  word  of 
God  written,  are  now  contained  all  the  books  of  the  Old 
and  New  Testament,  which  are  these : 


OF  THE  OLD  TESTAMENT. 


Genesis. 

II.  Chronicles. 

Daniel. 

Exodus. 

Ezra. 

Hosea. 

Leviticus. 

Nehemiah. 

Joel. 

Numbers. 

Esther. 

Amos. 

Deuteronomy. 

Job. 

Obadiah. 

Joshua. 

Psalms. 

Jonah. 

Judges. 

Proverbs. 

Micah. 

Ruth. 

Ecclesiastes. 

Nahum. 

I.  Samuel. 

The  Song  of  Songs. 

Habakkuk. 

II.  Samuel. 

Isaiah. 

Zephaniah. 

I.  Kings. 

Jeremiah. 

Haggai. 

II.  Kings. 

Lamentations. 

Zechariah. 

I.  Chronicles. 

Ezekiel. 

Malachi. 

OF 

THE  NEW  TESTAMENT. 

The  Gospels  accord¬ 

Corinthians,  II. 

The  Epistle  to  the 

ing  to 

Galatians. 

Hebrews. 

Matthew, 

Ephesians. 

The  Epistle  of  James. 

Mark, 

Philippian  s. 

The  first  and  second 

Luke, 

Colossians. 

Epistles  of  Peter. 

John. 

Thessalonians,  I. 

The  first,  second  and 

The  Acts  of  the 

Thessalonians,  II. 

third  Epistles  of 

Apostles. 

Paul’s  Epistles  to  the 

To  Timothy,  I. 

John. 

To  Timothy,  II. 

The  Epistle  of  Jude. 

Romans. 
Corinthians,  I. 

To  Titus. 

To  Philemon. 

The  Revelation. 

77 


All  which,  are  given  by  inspiration  of  God,  to  be  the  rule 
of  faith  and  life. 

VIII.  The  Old  Testament  in  Hebrew  (which  was  the 
native  language  of  the  people  of  God  of  old)  and  the  New 
Testament  in  Greek  (which  at  the  time  of  the  writing  of  it 
was  most  generally  known  to  the  nations),  being  imme¬ 
diately  inspired  by  God,  and  by  his  singular  care  and  provi¬ 
dence,  kept  pure  in  all  ages,  are  therefore  authentical ;  so 
as  in  all  controversies  of  religion  the  church  is  finally  to 
appeal  unto  them.  But  because  these  original  tongues  are 
not  known  to  all  the  people  of  God  who  have  right  unto, 
and  interest  in  the  Scriptures,  and  are  commanded,  in  the 
fear  of  God,  to  read  and  search  them,  therefore  they  are 
to  be  translated  into  the  vulgar  language  of  every  nation 
unto  which  they  come,  that  the  word  of  God  dwelling 
plentifully  in  all,  they  may  worship  him  in  an  acceptable 
manner,  and  through  patience  and  comfort  of  the  Scriptures 
may  have  hope. 

X.  The  Supreme  Judge,  by  which  all  controversies  of 
religion  are  to  be  determined,  and  all  decrees  of  councils, 
opinions  of  ancient  writers,  doctrines  of  men,  and  private 
spirits,  are  to  be  examined,  and  in  whose  sentence  we  are 
to  rest,  can  be  no  other  but  the  Holy  Spirit  speaking  in 
the  Scripture. 

Larger  Catechism,  2  and  3. 

Q.  2.  How  doth  it  appear  that  there  is  a  God  f 

A.  The  very  light  of  nature  in  man,  and  the  works  of 
God,  declare  plainly  that  there  is  a  God ;  but  his  word  and 
Spirit  only,  do  sufficiently  and  effectually  reveal  him  unto 
men  for  their  salvation. 

Q.  3.  What  is  the  word  of  God  f 

A.  The  holy  Scriptures  of  the  Old  and  New  Testament 
are  the  word  of  God,  the  only  rule  of  faith  and  obedience. 


78 


Shorter  Catechism,  2. 

Q.  2.  What  rule  hath  God  given  to  direct  us  how  we 
may  glorify  and  enjoy  him  f 

A.  The  word  of  God,  which  is  contained  in  the  Scriptures 
of  the  Old  and  New  Testaments,  is  the  only  rule  to  direct 
us  how  we  may  glorify  and  enjoy  him. 

SPECIFICATION  II. 

Dr.  Briggs  affirms  that,  in  the  case  of  some,  the  Holy 
Scriptures  are  not  sufficient  to  give  that  knowledge  of  God 
and  His  will,  which  is  necessary  unto  salvation,  even 
though  they  strive  never  so  hard ;  and  that  such  persons, 
setting  aside  the  supreme  authority  of  the  word  of  God, 
can  obtain  that  saving  knowledge  of  Him  through  the 
Church. 

INAUGURAL  ADDRESS. 

Page  25,  “  But  what  shall  we  say  of  a  modern  like  New¬ 
man,  who  could  not  reach  certainty,  striving  never  so  hard, 
through  the  Bible  or  the  Reason,  but  who  did  find  divine 
authority  in  the  institutions  of  the  Church.” 

Page  28,  “  Spurgeon  is  an  example  of  the  average  modern 
Evangelical,  who  holds  the  Protestant  position,  and  assails 
the  Church  and  Reason  in  the  interest  of  the  authority  of 
Scripture.  But  the  average  opinion  of  the  Christian 
world  would  not  assign  him  a  higher  place  in  the  kingdom 
of  God  than  Martineau  or  Newman.” 

These  declarations  are  contrary  to  the  Scripture : 

2  Tim.  iii.  15  to  17. — 15  And  that  from  a  child  thou  hast 
known  the  holy  Scriptures,  which  are  able  to  make  thee 
wise  unto  salvation  through  faith  which  is  in  Christ  Jesus. 
16  All  Scripture  is  given  by  inspiration  of  God,  and  is 
profitable  for  doctrine,  for  reproof,  for  correction,  for 
instruction  in  righteousness :  17  That  the  man  of  God  may 
be  perfect,  thoroughly  furnished  unto  all  good  works. 


James  i.  18.  Of  his  own  will  begat  he  ns  with  the  word 
of  truth,  that  we  should  be  a  kind  of  firstfruits  of  his  crea¬ 
tures. 

Ephe.  ii.  20.  And  are  built  upon  the  foundation  of  the 
apostles  and  prophets,  Jesus  Christ  himself  being  the  chief 
corner  stone. 

Ps.  cxix.  105,  130. — 105  Thy  word  is  a  lamp  unto  my 
feet,  and  a  light  unto  my  path.  130  The  entrance  of  thy 
words  giveth  light ;  it  giveth  understanding  unto  the  simple. 

Luke  xvi.  31.  And  he  said  unto  him,  If  they  hear  not 
Moses  and  the  prophets,  neither  will  they  be  persuaded, 
though  one  rose  from  the  dead. 

John  xiv.  6.  Jesns  saith  unto  him,  I  am  the  way,  the 
truth,  and  the  life ;  no  man  cometh  unto  the  Father,  but 
by  me. 

John  xx.  31.  But  these  are  written,  that  ye  might  be¬ 
lieve  that  Jesns  is  the  Christ,  the  Son  of  God;  and  that 
believing  ye  might  have  life  through  his  name. 

2  Tim.  i.  9,  10. — 9  Who  hath  saved  ns,  and  called  us 
with  a  holy  calling,  not  according  to  our  works,  but  accord¬ 
ing  to  his  own  purpose  and  grace,  which  was  given  us  in 
Christ  Jesns  before  the  world  began ;  10  But  is  now  made 
manifest  by  the  appearing  of  onr  Saviour  Jesns  Christ, 
who  hath  abolished  death,  and  hath  brought  life  and  im¬ 
mortality  to  light  through  the  gospel. 

2  Thess.  ii.  13.  But  we  are  bound  to  give  thanks  always 
to  God  for  you,  brethren  beloved  of  the  Lord,  because  God 
hath  from  the  beginning  chosen  you  to  salvation  through 
sanctification  of  the  Spirit  and  belief  of  the  truth. 

1  Thess.  ii.  13.  For  this  cause  also  thank  we  God  with¬ 
out  ceasing,  because,  when  ye  received  the  word  of  God 
which  ye  heard  of  us,  ye  received  it  not  as  the  word  of 
men,  but,  as  it  is  in  truth,  the  word  of  God,  which  effect¬ 
ually  worketh  also  in  you  that  believe. 

John  vi.  45.  It  is  written  in  the  prophets,  And  they 


80 


shall  be  all  taught  of  God.  Every  man  therefore  that  hath 
heard,  and  hath  learned  of  the  Father,  cometh  nnto  me. 

These  declarations  are  contrary  to  our  Standards, 
Confession  of  Faith,  Chap.  I.,  Secs.  I.,  V.,  VI.,  VII. 

I.  Although  the  light  of  nature,  and  the  works  of  crea¬ 
tion  and  providence,  do  so  far  manifest  the  goodness,  wis¬ 
dom,  and  power  of  God,  as  to  leave  men  inexcusable ;  yet 
they  are  not  sufficient  to  give  that  knowledge  of  God,  and 
of  his  will,  which  is  necessary  unto  salvation ;  therefore  it 
pleased  the  Lord,  at  sundry  times,  and  in  divers  manners, 
to  reveal  himself,  and  to  declare  that  his  will  unto  his 
church ;  and  afterwards,  for  the  better  preserving  and 
propagating  of  the  truth,  and  for  the  more  sure  establish¬ 
ment  and  comfort  of  the  church  against  the  corruption  of 
the  flesh,  and  the  malice  of  Satan  and  of  the  world,  to 
commit  the  same  wholly  unto  writing ;  which  maketh  the 
Holy  Scripture  to  be  most  necessary ;  those  former  ways  of 
God’s  revealing  his  will  unto  his  people  being  now  ceased. 

V.  We  may  be  moved  and  induced  by  the  testimony  of 
the  church  to  an  high  and  reverent  esteem  for  the  Holy 
Scripture ;  and  the  heavenliness  of  the  matter,  the  efficacy 
of  the  doctrine,  the  majesty  of  the  style,  the  consent  of  all 
the  parts,  the  scope  of  the  whole,  (which  is  to  give  all 
glory  to  God,)  the  full  discovery  it  makes  of  the  only  way 
of  man’s  salvation,  the  many  other  incomparable  excel¬ 
lencies,  and  the  entire  perfection  thereof,  are  arguments 
whereby  it  doth  abundantly  evidence  itself  to  be  the  word 
of  God;  yet,  notwithstanding,  our  full  persuasion  and 
assurance  of  the  infallible  truth,  and  divine  authority 
thereof,  is  from  the  inward  work  of  the  Holy  Spirit,  bear¬ 
ing  witness  by  and  with  the  word  in  our  hearts. 

VI.  The  whole  counsel  of  God,  concerning  all  things 
necessary  for  his  own  glory,  man’s  salvation,  faith,  and 


81 


life,  is  either  expressly  set  clown  in  Scripture,  or  by  good 
and  necessary  consequence  may  be  deduced  from  Scrip¬ 
ture  :  unto  which  nothing  at  any  time  is  to  be  added, 
whether  by  new  revelations  of  the  Spirit,  or  traditions  of 
men.  Nevertheless  we  acknowledge  the  inward  illumina¬ 
tion  of  the  Spirit  of  God  to  be  necessary  for  the  saving 
understanding  of  such  things  as  are  revealed  in  the  word ; 
and  that  there  are  some  circumstances  concerning  the  wor¬ 
ship  of  God,  and  government  of  the  church,  common  to 
human  actions  and  societies,  which  are  to  be  ordered  by 
the  light  of  nature  and  Christian  prudence,  according  to 
the  general  rules  of  the  word,  which  are  always  to  be 
observed. 

VII.  All  things  in  Scripture  are  not  alike  plain  in  them¬ 
selves,  nor  alike  clear  unto  all ;  yet  those  things  which  are 
necessary  to  be  known,  believed,  and  observed,  for  salva¬ 
tion,  are  so  clearly  propounded  and  opened  in  some  place 
of  Scripture  or  other,  that  not  only  the  learned  but  the 
unlearned,  in  a  due  use  of  the  ordinary  means,  may  attain 
unto  a  sufficient  understanding  of  them. 

SPECIFICATION  III 

Dr.  Briggs  affirms  that  some  (such  as  James  Martineau, 
who  denies  the  doctrines  of  the  Holy  Trinity,  the  Incarna¬ 
tion,  the  Atonement,  the  Resurrection  of  the  Body,  the 
personality  of  the  Holy  Ghost,  who  rejects  the  miracles  of 
the  Bible  and  denies  the  truth  of  the  Gospel  narratives,  as 
well  as  most  of  the  theology  of  the  Epistles),  to  whom  the 
Holy  Scripture  is  not  sufficient  to  give  that  knowledge  of 
God,  and  of  His  Will,  which  is  necessary  unto  salvation, 
may  turn  from  the  Supreme  Authority  of  the  Word  of 
God  and  find  that  knowledge  of  Him  through  the  Reason. 

INAUGURAL  ADDRESS. 

Page  27,  “  Martineau  could  not  find  divine  authority 


82 


in  the  Church  or  the  Bible,  but  he  did  find  God  enthroned 
in  his  own  soul.  There  are  those  who  would  refuse  these 
Rationalists  a  place  in  the  company  of  the  faithful.  But 
they  forget  that  the  essential  thing  is  to  find  God  and 
divine  certainty,  and  if  these  men  have  found  God  without 
the  mediation  of  Church  and  Bible,  Church  and  Bible  are 
means  and  not  ends  ;  they  are  avenues  to  God,  but  are  not 
God.  We  regret  that  these  Rationalists  depreciate  the 
means  of  grace  so  essential  to  must  of  us,  but  we  are 
warned  lest  we  commit  a  similar  error,  and  depreciate  the 
Reason  and  the  Christian  consciousness.” 

Page  28,  “  Spurgeon  is  an  example  of  the  average  modern 
Evangelical,  who  holds  the  Protestant  position,  and  assails 
the  Church  and  Reason  in  the  interest  of  authority  of 
Scripture.  But  the  average  opinion  of  the  Christian  world 
would  not  assign  him  a  higher  place  in  the  kingdom  of 
God  than  Martineau  or  Newman.  May  we  not  conclude, 
on  the  whole,  that  these  three  representative  Christians  of 
our  time,  living  in  or  near  the  world’s  metropolis,  have, 
each  in  his  way,  found  God  and  rested  on  divine 
authority?  ” 

These  declarations  are  contrary  to  the  Scripture  : 

1  John  v.  10.  He  that  believeth  on  the  .  Son  of  God 
hath  the  witness  in  himself :  he  that  believeth  not  God 
hath  made  him  a  liar ;  because  he  believeth  not  the  record 
that  God  gave  of  his  Son. 

John  xiv.  6.  Jesus  saith  unto  him,  I  am  the  way,  the 
truth,  and  the  life :  no  man  cometh  unto  the  father,  but 
by  me. 

Acts  iv.  12.  Neither  is  there  salvation  in  any  other; 
for  there  is  none  other  name  under  heaven  given  among 
men,  whereby  we  must  be  saved. 

Acts  viii.  32  to  35. — 32  The  place  of  the  Scripture  which 
he  read  was  this,  He  was  led  as  a  sheep  to  the  slaughter ; 


83 


and  like  a  lamb  dumb  before  Ms  shearer,  so  opened 
he  not  his  mouth  :  33  In  his  humiliation  his  judgment  was 
taken  away:  and  who  shall  declare  his  generation?  for 
his  life  is  taken  from  the  earth.  34  And  the  eunuch 
answered  Philip,  and  said,  I  pray  thee,  of  whom  speaketli 
the  prophet  this?  of  himself,  or  of  some  other  man? 
35  Then  Philip  opened  his  mouth,  and  began  at  the  same 
Scripture,  and  preached  unto  him  Jesus. 

Acts  x.  43.  To  him  give  all  the  prophets  witness,  that 
through  his  name  whosoever  believeth  in  him  shall  receive 
remission  of  sins. 

1  Cor.  ii.  13,  14. — 13  Which  things  also  we  speak,  not 
in  the  words  which  man’s  wisdom  teach eth,  but  which  the 
Holy  Ghost  teacheth ;  comparing  spiritual  things  with 
spiritual.  14  But  the  natural  man  receiveth  not  the 
things  of  the  Spirit  of  God :  for  they  are  foolishness  unto 
him  :  neither  can  he  know  them ,  because  they  are  spirit¬ 
ually  discerned. 

Eph.  ii.  20.  And  are  built  upon  the  foundation  of  the 
apostles  and  prophets,  Jesus  Christ  himself  being  the  chief 
corner  stone. 

Homans  xvi.  25,  26. — 25  How  to  him  that  is  of  power 
to  stablish  you  according  to  my  gospel,  and  the  preaching 
of  Jesus  Christ,  according  to  the  revelation  of  the  mystery, 
which  was  kept  secret  since  the  world  began.  26  But  now 
is  made  manifest,  and  by  the  Scriptures  of  the  prophets, 
according  to  the  commandment  of  the  everlasting  God, 
made  known  to  all  nations  for  the  obedience  of  faith. 

James  i.  18.  Of  his  own  will  begat  he  us  with  the  word 
of  truth,  that  we  should  be  a  kind  of  firstfruits  of  his 
creatures. 

Matt.  xxii.  29.  Jesus  answered  and  said  unto  them,  Ye 
do  err,  not  knowing  the  Scriptures,  nor  the  power  of  God. 

1  Cor.  i.  19  to  21. — 19  For  it  is  written,  I  will  destroy 
the  wisdom  of  the  wise,  and  will  bring  to  nothing  the 


84 


understanding  of  the  prudent.  20  Where  is  the  wise? 
where  is  the  scribe?  where  is  the  disputer  of  this  world? 
hath  not  God  made  foolish  the  wisdom  of  this  world? 
21  For  after  that  in  the  wisdom  of  god  the  world  by  wis¬ 
dom  knew  not  God,  it  pleased  God  by  the  foolishness  of 
preaching  to  save  them  that  believe. 

These  declarations  are  contrary  to  our  Standards, 
Confession  of  Faith,  Chap.  I.,  Secs.  I.,  V.,  VI. ,  VII. 

I.  Although  the  light  of  nature,  and  the  works  of  crea¬ 
tion  and  providence,  do  so  far  manifest  the  goodness,  wis¬ 
dom,  and  power  of  God,  as  to  leave  men  inexcusable ;  yet 
they  are  not  sufficient  to  give  that  knowledge  of  God,  and 
of  his  will,  which  is  necessary  unto  salvation ;  therefore  it 
pleased  the  Lord,  at  sundry  times,  and  in  divers  manners, 
to  reveal  himself,  and  to  declare  that  his  will  unto  his 
church ;  and  afterwards,  for  the  better  preserving  and  prop¬ 
agating  of  the  truth,  and  for  the  more  sure  establishment 
and  comfort  of  the  church  against  the  corruption  of  the 
flesh,  and  the  malice  of  Satan  and  of  the  world,  to  commit 
the  same  wholly  unto  writing :  which  maketh  the  Holy 
Scripture  to  be  most  necessary ;  those  former  ways  of  God’s 
revealing  his  will  unto  his  people  being  now  ceased. 

V.  We  may  be  moved  and  induced  by  the  testimony  of 
the  church  to  an  high  and  reverent  esteem  for  the  Holy 
Scripture ;  and  the  heavenliness  of  the  matter,  the  efficacy 
of  the  doctrine,  the  majesty  of  the  style,  the  consent  of  all 
the  parts,  the  scope  of  the  whole,  (which  is  to  give  all  glory 
to  God,)  the  full  discovery  it  makes  of  the  only  way  of 
man’s  salvation,  the  many  other  incomparable  excellencies, 
and  the  entire  perfection  thereof,  are  arguments  whereby 
it  doth  abundantly  evidence  itself  to  be  the  word  of  God ; 
yet,  notwithstanding,  our  full  persuasion  and  assurance  of 
the  infallible  truth,  and  divine  authority  thereof,  is  from 


85 


the  inward  work  of  the  Holy  Spirit,  bearing  witness  by  and 
with  the  word  in  onr  hearts. 

VI.  The  whole  counsel  of  God,  concerning  all  things 
necessary  for  his  own  glory,  man’s  salvation,  faith,  and 
life,  is  either  expressly  set  down  in  Scripture,  or  by  good 
and  necessary  consequence  may  be  deduced  from  Scripture  : 
unto  which  nothing  at  any  time  is  to  be  added,  whether  by 
new  revelations  of  the  Spirit,  or  traditions  of  men.  Never¬ 
theless  we  acknowledge  the  inward  illumination  of  the 
Spirit  of  God  to  be  necessary  for  the  saving  understanding 
of  such  things  as  are  revealed  in  the  word ;  and  that  there 
are  some  circumstances  concerning  the  worship  of  God, 
and  government  of  the  church,  common  to  human  actions 
and  societies,  which  are  to  be  ordered  by  the  light  of  nature 
and  Christian  prudence,  according  to  the  general  rules  of 
the  word,  which  are  always  to  be  observed. 

VII.  All  things  in  Scripture  are  not  alike  plain  in  them¬ 
selves,  nor  alike  clear  unto  all;  yet  those  things  which 
are  necessary  to  be  known,  believed  and  observed,  for  sal¬ 
vation,  are  so  clearly  propounded  and  opened  in  some 
place  of  Scripture  or  other,  that  not  only  the  learned  but 
the  unlearned,  in  a  due  use  of  the  ordinary  means,  may 
attain  unto  a  sufficient  understanding  of  them. 

SPECIFICATION  IV. 

Dr.  Briggs  asserts  that  the  temperaments  and  environ¬ 
ments  of  men  determine  which  of  the  three  ways  of  access 
to  God  they  may  pursue. 

INAUGURAL  ADDRESS. 

Page  28,  u  May  we  not  conclude,  on  the  whole,  that 
these  three  representative  Christians  of  our  time,  living  in 
or  near  the  world’s  metropolis,  have,  each  in  his  way,  found 
God  and  rested  on  divine  authority  ?  May  we  not  learn 


86 


from  them  not  to  depreciate  any  of  the  means  whereby 
God  makes  Himself  known  to  men?  Men  are  influenced 
by  their  temperaments  and  environments  which  of  the  three 
ways  of  access  to  God  they  may  pursue.” 

This  statement  is  contrary  to  the  Scripture : 

1  Pet.  i.  23,  25. — 23  Being  born  again,  not  of  corruptible 
seed,  but  of  incorruptible,  by  the  word  of  God,  which  liveth 
and  abideth  for  ever.  25  But  the  word  of  the  Lord  endureth 
for  ever.  And  this  is  the  word  which  by  the  gospel  is 
preached  unto  you. 

1  Gal.  i.  8,  9. — 8  But  though  we,  or  an  angel  from  heaven, 
preach  any  other  gospel  unto  you  than  that  which  we  have 
preached  unto  you,  let  him  be  accursed.  9  As  we  said 
before,  so  say  I  now  again,  if  any  man  preach  any  other 
gospel  unto  you  than  that  ye  have  received,  let  him  be 
accursed. 

John  xiv.  6.  Jesus  saith  unto  him,  I  am  the  way,  the 
truth,  and  the  life :  no  man  cometh  unto  the  Father,  but 
by  me. 

This  statement  is  contrary  to  our  Standards, 

Confession  of  Faith,  Chap.  I.,  Secs.  I.,  VI. 

I.  Although  the  light  of  nature,  and  the  works  of  creation 
and  providence,  do  so  far  manifest  the  goodness,  wisdom, 
and  power  of  God,  as  to  leave  men  inexcusable ;  yet  they 
are  not  sufficient  to  give  that  knowledge  of  God,  and  of 
his  will,  which  is  necessary  unto  salvation;  therefore  it 
pleased  the  Lord,  at  sundry  times,  and  in  divers  manners, 
to  reveal  himself,  and  to  declare  that  his  will  unto  his 
church;  and  afterwards,  for  the  better  preserving  and 
propagating  of  the  truth,  and  for  the  more  sure  establish¬ 
ment  and  comfort  of  the  church  against  the  corruption  of 
the  flesh,  and  the  malice  of  Satan  and  of  the  world,  to  com¬ 
mit  the  same  wholly  unto  writing ;  which  maketh  the  Holy 


87 


Scripture  to  be  most  necessary;  those  former  ways  of 
God’s  revealing  his  will  unto  his  people  being  now  ceased. 

YI.  The  whole  counsel  of  God,  concerning  all  things 
necessary  for  his  own  glory,  man’s  salvation,  faith,  and 
life,  is  either  expressly  set  down  in  Scripture,  or  by  good 
and  necessary  consequence  may  be  deduced  from  Scrip¬ 
ture  :  unto  which  nothing  at  any  time  is  to  be  added, 
whether  by  new  revelations  of  the  Spirit,  or  traditions  of 
men.  Nevertheless  we  acknowledge  the  inward  illumina¬ 
tion  of  the  Spirit  of  God  to  be  necessary  for  the  saving- 
understanding  of  such  things  as  are  revealed  in  the  word ; 
and  that  there  are  some  circumstances  concerning  the 
worship  of  God,  and  government  of  the  church,  common 
to  human  actions  and  societies,  which  are  to  be  ordered  by 
the  light  of  nature  and  Christian  prudence,  according  to 
the  general  rules  of  the  word,  which  are  always  to  be 
observed. 

SPECIFICATION  V. 

Dr.  Briggs  makes  statements  in  regard  to  the  Holy  Scrip¬ 
tures  which  cannot  be  reconciled  with  the  doctrine  of  the 
true  and  f nil  inspiration  of  those  Scriptures  as  the  k  ‘  W ord 
of  God  written.” 

IXAUGURAL  ADDRESS. 

Page  30,  “  The  Bible,  as  a  book,  is  paper,  print  and 
binding — nothing  more.  It  is  entitled  to  reverent  hand¬ 
ling  for  the  sake  of  its  holy  contents,  because  it  contains 
the  divine  word  of  redemption  for  man,  and  not  for  any 
other  reason  whatever.  ’  ’ 

Page  31,  “There  is  nothing  divine  in  the  text — in  its 
letters,  words  or  clauses.  There  are  those  who  hold  that 
thought  and  language  are  as  inseparable  as  body  and  soul. 
But  language  is  rather  the  dress  of  thought.  A  master  of 
many  languages  readily  clothes  the  same  thought  in  half 
a  dozen  different  languages.  The  same  thought  in  the 


88 


Bible  itself  is  dressed  in  different  literary  styles,  and  the 
thought  of  the  one  is  as  authoritative  as  the  other.  The 
divine  authority  is  not  in  the  style  or  in  the  words,  but  in 
the  concept,  and  so  the  divine  power  of  the  Bible  may  be 
transferred  into  any  human  language.  The  divine  author¬ 
ity  contained  in  the  Scriptures  speaks  as  powerfully  in 
English  as  in  Greek,  in  Choctaw  as  in  Aramaic,  in  Chinese 
as  in  Hebrew.  We  force  our  wTay  through  the  language 
and  the  letter,  the  grammar  and  the  style,  to  the  inner 
substance  of  the  thought,  for  there,  if  at  all,  we  shall  find 
God.55 

Page  34,  “  It  is  not  a  pleasant  task  to  point  out  errors 
in  the  sacred  Scriptures.  Nevertheless,  Historical  Crit¬ 
icism  finds  them,  and  we  must  meet  the  issue  whether  they 
destroy  the  authority  of  the  Bible  or  not.55 

Pages  35-36,  “I  shall  venture  to  affirm  that,  so  far  as  I 
can  see,  there  are  errors  in  the  Scriptures  that  no  one  has 
been  able  to  explain  away ;  and  the  theory  that  they  were 
not  in  the  original  text  is  sheer  assumption,  upon  which 
no  mind  can  rest  with  certainty.  If  such  errors  destroy 
the  authority  of  the  Bible,  it  is  already  destroyed  for  his¬ 
torians.  Men  cannot  shut  their  eyes  to  truth  and  fact. 
But  on  what  authority  do  these  theologians  drive  men  from 
the  Bible  by  this  theory  of  inerrancy?  The  Bible  itself 
nowhere  makes  this  claim.  The  creeds  of  the  Church 
nowhere  sanction  it.  It  is  a  ghost  of  modern  evangelical¬ 
ism  to  frighten  children.  The  Bible  has  maintained  its 
authority  with  the  best  scholars  of  our  time,  who  with 
open  minds  have  been  willing  to  recognize  any  error  that 
might  be  pointed  out  by  Historical  Criticism ;  for  these 
errors  are  all  in  the  circumstantials  and  not  in  the  essen¬ 
tials  ;  they  are  in  the  human  setting,  not  in  the  precious  jewel 
itself;  they  are  found  in  that  section  of  the  Bible  that 
theologians  commonly  account  for  from  the  providential 
superintendence  of  the  mind  of  the  author,  as  distinguished 


89 


from  divine  revelation  itself.  It  may  be  that  this  provi¬ 
dential  superintendence  gives  infallible  guidance  in  every 
particular ;  and  it  may  be  that  it  differs  but  little,  if  at  all, 
from  the  providential  superintendence  of  the  fathers  and 
schoolmen  and  theologians  of  the  Christian  Church.  It  is 
not  important  for  our  purpose  that  we  should  decide  this 
question.  If  we  should  abandon  the  whole  field  of  provi- 
dential  superintendence  so  far  as  inspiration  and  divine 
authority  are  concerned  and  limit  divine  inspiration  and 
authority  to  the  essential  contents  of  the  Bible,  to  its 
religion,  faith  and  morals,  we  would  still  have  ample 
room  to  seek  divine  authority  where  alone  it  is  essential, 
or  even  important,  in  the  teaching  that  guides  our  devo¬ 
tions,  our  thinking,  and  our  conduct. 5  5 

Page  95,  “I  have  not  taken  a  brief  to  prove  the  errancy 
of  Scripture.  Conservative  men  should  hesitate  before 
they  force  the  critics  in  self-defence  to  make  a  catalogue 
of  errors  in  the  Bible.  It  is  not  my  place  to  distinguish 
between  the  essential  and  the  non-essential  contents  of  the 
Bible.  The  errors  are  in  the  only  texts  we  have,  and 
every  one  is  forced  to  recognize  them.” 

These  statements  are  contrary  to  the  Scriptures : 

Heb.  i.  1,  2. — 1  God,  who  at  sundry  times  and  in  divers 
manners  spake  in  time  past  unto  the  fathers  by  the 
prophets,  2  Hath  in  these  last  days  spoken  unto  us  by 
his  Son,  whom  he  hath  appointed  heir  of  all  things,  by 

whom  also  he  made  the  worlds : 

Acts  i.  16.  Men  and  brethren,  this  Scripture  must 
needs  have  been  fulfilled,  which  the  Holy  Ghost  by  the 
mouth  of  David  spake  before  concerning  Judas,  which 

was  guide  to  them  that  took  Jesus. 

Acts  iii.  18.  But  those  things,  which  God  before  had 
shewed  by  the  mouth  of  all  his  prophets,  that  Christ 
should  suffer,  he  hath  so  fulfilled. 


90 


1  Cor.  ii.  13.  Which  things  also  we  speak,  not  in  the 
words  which  man’s  wisdom  teacheth,  but  which  the 

Holy  Ghost  teacheth;  comparing  spiritual  things  with 
spiritual. 

2  Pet.  i.  20,  21. — 20  Knowing  this  first,  that  no  proph¬ 
ecy  of  the  Scripture  is  of  any  private  interpretation,  21 
For  the  prophecy  came  not  in  old  time  by  the  will  of 

man .  but  holy  men  of  God  spake  as  they  wexe  moved  by 
the  Holy  Ghost. 

2  Tim.  iii.  16.  All  Scripture  is  given  by  inspiration  of 
God,  and  is  profitable  for  doctrine,  for  reproof,  for  correc¬ 
tion,  for  instruction  in  righteousness. 

Horn.  ix.  17.  For  the  Scripture  saith  unto  Pharaoh, 
Even  foi  this  same  purpose  have  I  raised  thee  up,  that 
I  might  shew  my  power  in  thee,  and  that  my  name  might 
be  declared  throughout  all  the  earth. 

Mark  xii.  36.  For  David  himself  said  by  the  Holy 
Ghost,  The  Lord  said  to  my  Lord,  Sit  thou  on  my  right 
hand,  till  I  make  thine  enemies  thy  footstool. 

Acts  vii.  38.  This  is  he  that  was  in  the  church  in  the 
wilderness  with  the  angel  which  spake  to  him  in  the 
Mount  Sina,  and  with  our  fathers:  who  received  the 
lively  oracles  to  give  unto  us. 

Acts  xxviii.  25.  And  when  they  agreed  not  among 
themselves,  they  departed,  after  that  Paul  had  spoken 
one  word,  Well  spake  the  Holy  Ghost  by  Esaias  the 
prophet  unto  our  fathers. 

2  Sam.  xxiii.  2.  .  The  Spirit  of  the  Lord  spake  by  me, 
and  his  word  was  in  my  tongue. 

Ps.  xix,  7.  The  law  of  the  Lord  is  perfect,  converting 
the  soul :  the  testimony  of  the  Lord  is  sure,  making  wise 
the  sinrple. 

Ps.  cxix.  142,  160.— 142  Thy  righteousness  is  an  ever¬ 
lasting  righteousness,  and  thy  law  is  the  truth.  160  Thy 


91 


word  is  true  from  the  beginning :  and  every  one  of  thy 
righteous  judgments  endureth  for  ever. 

Dan.  x.  21.  But  I  will  shew  thee  that  which  is  noted 
in  the  Scripture  of  truth :  and  there  is  none  that  holdeth 
with  me  in  these  things,  but  Michael  your  prince. 

Num.  xxiii.  19.  God  is  not  a  man,  that  he  should  lie; 
neither  the  son  of  man,  that  he  should  repent :  hath  he 
said,  and  shall  he  not  do  it  f  or  hath  he  spoken,  and  shall 
he  not  make  it  good? 

Luke  i.  1  to  4. — 1  Forasmuch  as  many  have  taken  in 
hand  to  set  forth  in  order  a  declaration  of  those  things 
which  are  most  surely  believed  among  us,  2  Even  as 

thev  delivered  them  unto  us,  which  from  the  beginning 

«/  * 

were  eye-witnesses,  and  ministers  of  the  word;  3  It 
seemed  good  to  me  also,  having  had  perfect  understand¬ 
ing  of  all  things  from  the  very  first,  to  write  unto  thee 
in  order,  most  excellent  Theophilus,  4  That  thou  might- 
est  know  the  certainty  of  those  things,  wherein  thou  hast 
been  instructed. 

John  xvii.  17.  Sanctify  them  through  thy  truth :  thy 
word  is  truth. 

Bom.  xv.  3,  4. — 3  For  even  Christ  pleased  not  him¬ 
self;  but,  as  it  is  written,  The  reproaches  of  them  that 
reproached  thee  fell  on  me.  4  For  whatsoever  things 
were  written  aforetime  were  written  for  our  learning, 
that  we  through  patience  and  comfort  of  the  Scriptures 
might  have  hope. 

1  Thess.  ii.  13.  For  this  cause  also  thank  we  God 
without  ceasing,  because,  when  ye  received  the  word  of 
God  which  ye  heard  of  us,  ye  received  it  not  as  the  word 
of  men,  but,  as  it  is  in  truth,  the  word  of  God,  which 
effectually  worketh  also  in  you  that  believe. 

Matt.  v.  17  to  19.— 17  Think  not  that  I  am  come  to 
destroy  the  law,  or  the  prophets :  I  am  not  come  to  de- 


92 


stroy,  but  to  fulfil.  18  For  verily  I  say  unto  you,  Till 
heaven  and  earth  pass,  one  jot  or  one  tittle  shall  in  no  wise 
pass  from  the  law,  till  all  be  fulfilled.  19  Whosoever, 
therefore,  shall  break  one  of  these  least  commandments, 
and  shall  teach  men  so,  he  shall  be  called  the  least  in  the 
kingdom  of  heaven :  but  whosoever  shall  do  and  teach 
them ,  the  same  shall  be  called  great  in  the  kingdom  of 
heaven. 

TIeb.  xii.  27.  And  this  word ,  Yet  once  more,  sig¬ 
nified  the  removing  of  those  things  that  are  shaken,  as 
of  things  that  are  made,  that  those  things  which  cannot 
be  shaken  may  remain. 

Gal.  iii.  16.  How  to  Abraham  and  his  seed  were  the 
promises  made.  He  saith  not,  And  to  seeds,  as  of 
many ;  but  as  of  one,  And  to  thy  seed,  which  is  Christ. 

John  x.  34  to  36. — 34  Jesus  answered  them,  Is  it  not 
written  in  your  law,  I  said,  Ye  are  gods?  35  If  he  called 
them  gods,  unto  whom  the  word  of  God  came,  and  the 
Scripture  cannot  be  broken ;  36  Say  ye  of  him,  whom 
the  Father  hath  sanctified,  and  sent  into  the  world, 
Thou  blasphemest;  because  I  said,  I  am  the  Son  of 
God  ? 

Isa.  viii.  20 :  To  the  law  and  to  the  testimony :  if 
they  speak  not  according  to  this  word,  it  is  because  there 
is  no  light  in  them. 

1  Pet.  i.  23,  25. — 23  Being  born  again,  not  of  corrupti¬ 
ble  seed,  but  of  incorruptible,  by  the  word  of  God,  which 
liveth  and  abideth  for  ever.  25  But  the  word  of  the 
Lord  endureth  for  ever.  And  this  is  the  word  which  by 
the  gospel  is  preached  unto  you. 

Acts  xxiv.  14 — 14  But  this  I  confess  unto  thee,  that  after 
the  way  which  they  call  heresy,  so  worship  I  the  God  of 
my  fathers,  believing  all  things  which  are  written  in  the 
law  and  in  the  prophets. 


93 


These  statements  are  contrary  to  onr  Standards, 
Confession  of  Faith,  Chap.  I.,  Secs.  I.,  II.,  IV.,  "V ., 


VIII.,  IX.;  Chap.  XIV.,  Sec.  II. 


I.  Although  the  light  of  nature,  and  the  works  of 
creation  and  providence,  do  so  far  manifest  the  good¬ 
ness,  wisdom,  and  power  of  God,  as  to  leave  men  inex¬ 
cusable  ;  yet  they  are  not  sufficient  to  give  that  knowl¬ 
edge  of  God,  and  of  his  will,  which  is  necessary  unto 
salvation ;  therefore  it  pleased  the  Lord,  at  sundry  times, 
and  in  divers  manners,  to  reveal  himself,  and  to  declare 
that  his  will  unto  his  church;  and  afterwards,  for  the 
better  preserving  and  propagating  of  the  truth,  and  for 
the  more  sure  establishment  and  comfort  of  the  chuicli 
against  the  corruption  of  the  flesh,  and  the  malice  or 
Satan  and  of  the  world,  to  commit  the  same  wholly  unto 
writing ;  which  maketh  the  Holy  Scripture  to  be  most 
necessary;  those  former  ways  of  God’s  revealing  his  will 
unto  his  people  being  now  ceased. 

II.  Under  the  name  of  Holy  Scripture,  or  the  word  of 
God  written,  are  now  contained  all  the  books  of  the  Old 
and  Hew  Testament,  which  are  these : 


OF  THE  OLD  TESTAMENT. 


Genesis. 

Exodus. 

Leviticus. 

Numbers. 

Deuteronomy. 

Joshua. 

Judges. 

Ruth. 

I.  Samuel. 

II.  Samuel. 

I.  Kings. 

II.  Kings. 

I.  Chronicles. 


II.  Chronicles. 

Ezra. 

Nehemiah. 

Esther. 

Job. 

Psalms. 

Proverbs. 

Ecclesiastes. 

The  Song  of  Songs. 
Isaiah. 

Jeremiah. 

Lamentations. 

Ezekiel. 


Daniel. 

Hosea. 

Joel. 

Amos. 

Obadiah. 

Jonah. 

Micali. 

Nahum. 

Habakkuk. 

Zephaniah. 

Haggai. 

Zechariah. 

Malachi. 


94 


OF  THE  HEW  TESTAMENT. 

The  Epistle  to  the 
Hebrews. 

The  Epistle  of  James. 
The  first  and  second 
Epistles  of  Peter. 
The  first,  second  and 
third  Epistles  of 
John. 

The  Epistle  of  Jude. 
The  Revelation. 

All  which  are  given  by  inspiration  of  God,  to  be  the 
rule  of  faith  and  life. 

IY.  The  authority  of  the  Holy  Scripture,  for  which  it 
ought  to  be  believed  and  obeyed,  dependeth  not  upon  the 
testimony  of  any  man  or  church,  but  wholly  upon  God, 
(who  is  truth  itself,)  the  author  thereof;  and  therefore  it 
is  to  be  received,  because  it  is  the  word  of  God. 

Y.  We  may  be  moved  and  induced  by  the  testimony 
of  the  church  to  an  high  and  reverent  esteem  for  the 
Holy  Scripture ;  and  the  heavenliness  of  the  matter,  the 
efficacy  of  the  doctrine,  the  majesty  of  the  style,  the 
consent  of  all  the  parts,  the  scope  of  the  whole,  (which 
is  to  give  all  glory  to  God,)  the  full  discovery  it  makes 
of  the  only  way  of  man’s  salvation,  the  many  other  in¬ 
comparable  excellencies,  and  the  entire  perfection  thereof, 
are  arguments  whereby  it  doth  abundantly  evidence  itself 
to  be  the  word  of  God ;  yet,  nothwithstanding,  our  full 
persuasion  and  assurance  of  the  infallible  truth,  and 
divine  authority  thereof,  is  from  the  inward  work  of  the 

Holy  Spirit,  bearing  witness  by  and  with  the  word  in  our 
hearts. 

YHI.  dhe  Old  Testament  in  Hebrew,  (which  was  the 
native  language  of  the  people  of  God  of  old,)  and  the 


The  Gospels  accord¬ 
ing  to 
Matthew, 

Mark, 

Luke, 

John. 

The  Acts  of  the 
Apostles. 

Paul’s  Epistles  to  the 
Romans. 
Corinthians,  I. 


Corinthians,  II. 
Galatians, 
Ephesians. 
Philippians. 
Colossians. 
Thessalonians,  I. 
Thessalonians,  II. 
To  Timothy,  I. 
To  Timothy,  II. 
To  Titus. 

To  Philemon. 


V 


95 

JSTew  Testament  in  Greek,  (which  at  the  time  of  the  writing 
of  it  was  most  generally  known  to  the  nations,)  being  im¬ 
mediately  inspired  by  God,  and  by  his  singular  care  and 
providence,  kept  pure  in  all  ages,  are  therefore  authentical ; 
so  as  in  all  controversies  of  religion  the  church  is  finally  to 
appeal  unto  them.  But  because  these  original  tongues 
are  not  known  to  all  the  people  of  God  who  have  right 
unto,  and  interest  in  the  Scriptures,  and  are  commanded 
in  the  fear  of  God,  to  read  and  search  them,  therefore  they 
are  to  be  translated  into  the  vulgar  language  of  every 
nation  unto  which  they  come,  that  the  word  of  God  dwell¬ 
ing  plentifully  in  all,  they  may  worship  him  in  an  accept¬ 
able  manner,  and  through  patience  and  comfort  of  the 
Scriptures  may  have  hope. 

IX.  The  infallible  rule  of  interpretation  of  Scripture  is 
the  Scripture  itself;  and  therefore,  when  there  is  a 
question  about  the  true  and  full  sense  of  any  scripture, 
(which  is  not  manifold,  but  one,)  it  may  be  searched  and 
known  by  other  places  that  speak  more  clearly. 

Chap.  xiy.  Sec.  ii.  By  this  faith,  a  Christian  believeth 
to  be  true,  whatsoever  is  revealed  in  the  word,  for  the 
authority  of  God  himself  speaking  therein :  and  acteth 
differently,  upon  that  which  each  particular  passage  thereof 
containeth ;  yielding  obedience  to  the  commands,  ti ena¬ 
bling  at  the  threatenings,  and  embracing  the  promises  of 
God  for  this  life,  and  that  which  is  to  come.  But  the 
principal  acts  of  saving  faith  are,  accepting,  receiving, 
and  resting  upon  Christ  alone  for  justification,  sanctifica¬ 
tion,  and  eternal  life,  by  virtue  of  the  covenant  of  grace. 


SPECIFICATION  VI 

Dr.  Briggs  asserts  that  Moses  is  not  the  author  of  the 
Pentateuch,  and  that  Isaiah  is  not  the  author  of  half  of  the 
book  which  bears  his  name. 


96 


INAUGURAL  ADDRESS. 

Page  33,  “  It  may  be  regarded  as  the  certain  result  of 
the  science  of  the  Higher  Criticism  that  Moses  did  not 
write  the  Pentateuch.” 

Page  33,  “  Isaiah  did  not  write  half  of  the  book  that 
bears  his  name.” 

These  statements  are  contrary  to  Scripture : 

Ex.  xxiv.  3,  4. — 3  And  Moses  came  and  told  the  people 
all  the  words  of  the  Lord,  and  all  the  judgments :  and  all 
the  people  answered  with  one  voice,  and  said,  All  the 
words  which  the  Lord  hath  said  will  we  do.  4  And 
Moses  wrote  all  the  words  of  the  Lord,  and  rose  up  early 
in  the  morning,  and  builded  an  altar  under  the  hill,  and 
twelve  pillars,  according  to  the  twelve  tribes  of  Israel. 

Hum.  xxxiii.  2.  And  Moses  wrote  their  goings  out 
according  to  their  journeys  by  the  commandment  of  the 
Lord:  and  these  are  their  journeys  according  to  their 
goings  out. 

Deut.  xxxi.  9,  22. — 9.  And  Moses  wrote  this  law,  and 
delivered  it  unto  the  priests  the  sons  of  Levi,  which  bare 
the  ark  of  the  covenant  of  the  Lord,  and  unto  all  the 
elders  of  Israel.  22  Moses  therefore  wrote  this  song  the 
same  day,  and  taught  it  the  children  of  Israel. 

Josh.  i.  7,  8. — 7  Only  be  thou  strong  and  very  cou¬ 
rageous,  that  thou  mayest  observe  to  do  according  to  all 
the  law,  which  Moses  my  servant  commanded  thee :  turn 
not  from  it  to  the  right  hand  or  to  the  left,  that  thou 
mayest  prosper  whithersoever  thou  goest.  8  This  book  of 
the  law  shall  not  depart  out  of  thy  mouth  :  but  thou  shall 
meditate  therein  day  and  night,  that  thou  mayest  observe 
to  do  according  to  all  that  is  written  therein:  for  then 
thou  shalt  make  thy  way  prosperous,  and  then  thou  shalt 
have  good  success. 

Josh.  viii.  31.  As  Moses  the  servant  of  the  Lord  com- 


97 


manded  the  children  of  Israel,  as  it  is  written  in  the  book 
of  the  law  of  Moses,  an  altar  of  whole  stones,  over  which  no 
man  hath  lifted  np  any  iron  :  and  they  offered  thereon  burnt 
offerings  unto  the  Lord,  and  sacrificed  peace  offerings. 

1  Kings  ii.  3.  And  keep  the  charge  of  the  Lord  thy  God, 
to  walk  in  his  ways,  to  keep  his  statutes,  and  his  com¬ 
mandments,  and  his  judgments,  and  his  testimonies,  as  it 
is  written  in  the  law  of  Moses,  that  thou  mayest  prosper 
in  all  that  thou  doest,  and  whithersoever  thou  turnest 

thyself. 

2  Kings  xxi.  8.  Neither  will  I  make  the  feet  of  Israel 
move  any  more  out  of  the  land  which  I  gave  their  fatheis , 
only  if  they  will  observe  to  do  according  to  all  that  I  have 
commanded  them,  and  according  to  all  the  law  that  my 

servant  Moses  commanded  them. 

Ezra  iii.  2,  6.-2  Then  stood  up  Jeshua  the  son  of 
Jozadak,  and  his  brethren  the  priests,  and  Zerubbabel  the 
son  of  Shealtiel,  and  his  brethren,  and  builded  the  altar 
of  the  God  of  Israel,  to  offer  burnt  offerings  thereon,  as  it 
is  written  in  the  law  of  Moses  the  man  of  God.  6  From 
the  first  day  of  the  seventh  month  began  they  to  offer 
burnt  offerings  unto  the  Lord.  But  the  foundation  of  the 

temple  of  the  Lord  was  not  yet  laid. 

Ezra  vi.  18.  And  they  set  the  priests  in  their  divisions, 

and  the  Levites  in  their  courses,  for  the  service  of  God, 
which  is  at  Jerusalem;  as  it  is  written  in  the  book  o 

Moses.  .  , 

Neh.  i.  7,  8. _ 7  We  have  dealt  very  corruptly  agams 

thee,  and  have  not  kept  the  commandments,  nor  the 

statutes,  nor  the  judgments,  which  thou  commandest  thy 

servant  Moses.  8  Remember,  I  beseech  thee,  the  word 

that  thou  commandest  thy  servant  Moses,  saying,  if  ye 

transgress,  I  will  scatter  you  abroad  among  the  nations. 

Neh.  viii.  1,  14,  15.— 1  And  all  the  people  gathered 

themselves  together  as  one  man  into  the  street  that  was 


98 


before  the  water  gate ;  and  they  spake  unto  Ezra  the  scribe 
to  bring  the  book  of  the  law  of  Moses  which  the  Lord  had 
commanded  to  Israel.  14  And  they  found  written  in  the 
law  which  the  Lord  had  commanded  by  Moses,  that  the 
children  of  Israel  should  dwell  in  booths  in  the  feast 
of  the  seventh  month  :  15  And  that  they  should  publish 

and  proclaim  in  all  their  cities,  and  in  Jerusalem,  saying, 
Go  forth  unto  the  mount,  and  fetch  olive  branches,  and 
pine  branches,  and  myrtle  branches,  and  palm  branches, 
and  branches  of  thick  trees,  to  make  booths,  as  it  is 
written. 

Neh.  x.  29  to  39. — 29  They  clave  to  their  brethren,  their 
nobles,  and  entered  into  a  curse,  and  into  an  oath,  to  walk 
in  God’s  law,  which  was  given  by  Moses  the  servant  of 
God,  and  to  observe  and  do  all  the  commandments  of  the 
Lord  our  Lord,  and  his  judgments  and  his  statutes ;  30 

And  that  we  would  not  give  our  daughters  unto  the  people 
of  the  land,  nor  take  their  daughters  for  our  sons :  31 

And  if  the  people  of  the  land  bring  ware  or  any  victuals 
on  the  sabbath  day  to  sell,  that  we  would  not  buy  it  of 
them  on  the  sabbath,  or  on  the  holy  day :  and  that  we 
would  leave  the  seventh  year,  and  the  exaction  of  every 
debt.  32  Also  we  made  ordinances  for  us,  to  charge  our¬ 
selves  yearly  with  the  third  part  of  a  shekel  for  the  service 
of  the  house  of  our  God;  33  For  the  shewbread,  and  for 
the  continual  meat  offering,  and  for  the  continual  burnt 
offering,  of  the  sabbaths,  of  the  new  moons,  for  the  set 
feasts,  and  for  the  holy  things ,  and  for  the  sin  offerings 
to  make  an  atonement  for  Israel,  and  fox  all  the  work 
of  the  house  of  our  God.  34  And  we  cast  the  lots  among 
the  priests,  the  Levites,*  and  the  people,  for  the  wood 
offering,  to  bring  it  into  the  house  of  our  God,  after  the 
houses  of  our  fathers,  at  times  appointed  year  by  year,  to 
bui  n  upon  the  altar  of  the  Lord  our  God,  as  it  is  written 
in  tue  law  :  35  And  to  bring  the  firstfruits  of  our  ground, 


99 


and  the  firstfruits  of  all  fruit  of  all  trees,  year  by  year, 
unto  the  house  of  the  Loud  :  36  Also  the  firstborn  of  our 

sons,  and  of  our  cattle,  as  it  is  written  in  the  law,  and  the 
firstlings  of  our  herds  and  of  our  flocks,  to  bring  to  the 
house  of  our  God,  unto  the  priests  that  minister  in  the 
house  of  our  God  :  87  And  that  we  should  bring  the  first- 

fruits  of  our  dough,  and  our  offerings,  and  the  fruit  of  all 
manner  of  trees,  of  wine  and  of  oil,  unto  the  priests,  to 
the  chambers  of  the  house  of  our  God ;  and  the  tithes 
of  our  ground  unto  the  Levites,  that  the  same  Levites 
might  have  the  tithes  in  all  the  cities  of  our  tillage.  38 
And  the  priest  the  son  of  Aaron  shall  be  with  the  Levites, 
when  the  Levites  take  tithes  :  and  the  Levites  shall  bring 
up  the  tithe  of  the  tithes  unto  the  house  of  our  God,  to 
the  chambers,  into  the  treasure  house.  39  For  the  children 
of  Israel  and  the  children  of  Levi  shall  bring  the  offering 
of  the  corn,  of  the  new  wine,  and  the  oil,  unto  the  cham¬ 
bers,  where  are  the  vessels  of  the  sanctuary,  and  the  priests 
that  minister,  and  the  porters,  and  the  singers :  and  we 

will  not  forsake  the  house  of  our  God. 

Neh.  xiii.  1.  On  that  day  they  read  in  the  book  of  Moses 
in  the  audience  of  people ;  and  therein  was  found  written, 
that  the  Ammonite  and  the  Moabite  should  not  come  into 

the  congregation  of  God  for  ever. 

1  Chron.  vi.  49.  But  Aaron  and  his  sons  offered  upon  the 
altar  of  the  burnt  offering,  and  on  the  altar  of  incense, 
and  were  appointed  for  all  the  work  of  the  place,  most 
holy,  and  to  make  an  atonement  for  Israel,  accoiding  to 
all  that  Moses  the  servant  of  God  had  commanded. 

Dan.  ix.  11,  13.— 11  Yea,  all  Israel  have  transgressed 
thy  law,  even  by  departing,  that  they  might  not  obey  thy 
voice ;  therefore  the  curse  is  poured  upon  us,  and  the  oath 
that  is  written  in  the  law  of  Moses  the  sei\ant  of  God, 
because  we  have  sinned  against  him.  13  As  it  is  written 
in  the  law  of  Moses,  all  this  evil  is  come  upon  us ;  yet 


100 


made  we  not  onr  prayer  before  the  Lord  our  God,  that  we 
might  turn  from  our  iniquities,  and  understand  thy  truth. 

Matt.  xix.  7,  9. — 7  They  say  unto  him,  Why  did  Moses 
then  command  to  give  a  writing  of  divorcement,  and  to 
put  her  away?  8  He  saith  unto  them,  Moses  because 
of  the  hardness  of  your  hearts  suffered  you  to  put  away 
your  wives ;  but  from  the  beginning  it  was  not  so. 

Mk.  vii.  10.  For  Moses  said,  Honour  thy  father  and 
thy  mother;  and,  Whoso  curseth  father  or  mother,  let 
him  die  the  death  : 

Luke  xxiv.  27,  44. — 27  And  beginning  at  Moses  and 
all  the  prophets,  he  expounded  unto  them  in  all  the 
Scriptures  the  things  concerning  himself.  44  And  he 
said  unto  them,  These  are  the  words  which  I  spake  unto 
you  while  I  was  yet  with  you,  that  all  things  must  be  ful¬ 
filled,  which  were  written  in  the  law  of  Moses,  and  in  the 
prophets,  and  in  the  psalms,  concerning  me. 

Luke  xx.  28,  37. — 28  Saying,  Master,  Moses  wrote  unto 
us,  If  any  man’s  brother  die,  leaving  a  wife,  and  he  die 
without  children,  that  his  brother  should  take  his  wife, 
and  raise  up  seed  unto  his  brother.  37  Now  that  the 
dead  are  raised,  even  Moses  showed  at  the  bush,  when 
he  calleth  the  Lord  the  God  of  Abraham,  and  the  God 
of  Isaac,  and  the  God  of  Jacob. 

John  i.  45.  Philip  findeth  Nathanael  and  saith  unto 
Mm,  We  have  found  him,  of  whom  Moses  in  the  law, 
and  the  prophets  did  write,  Jesus  of  Nazareth,  the  son  of 
Joseph. 

John  v.  45  to  47. — 45  Do  not  think  that  I  will  accuse 
you  to  the  Father :  there  is  one  that  accuseth  you,  even 
Moses,  in  whom  ye  trust.  46  For  had  ye  believed  Moses, 
ye  would  have  believed  me  :  for  he  wrote  of  me.  47  But 
if  ye  believe  not  his  writings,  how  shall  ye  believe  my 
words  ? 

John  vii.  19,  23.— 19  Did  not  Moses  give  you  the  law, 


101 


and  yet  none  of  you  keepeth  the  law?  Why  go  ye  about 
to  kill  me?  23  If  a  man  on  the  sabbatli  day  receive  cir¬ 
cumcision,  that  the  law  of  Moses  should  not  be  broken ; 
are  ye  angry  at  me,  because  I  have  made  a  man  every 

whit  whole  on  the  sabbath  day  ? 

Homans  x.  19.  But  I  say,  Bid  not  Israel  know?  First 

Moses  saith,  I  will  provoke  you  to  jealousy  by  them  that 
aTe  no  people,  and  by  a  foolish  nation  I  will  anger  you. 

Acts  iii.  22.  For  Moses  truly  said  unto  the  fathers,  A 
Prophet  shall  the  Lord  your  God  raise  up  unto  you  of 
your  brethren,  like  unto  me ;  him  shall  ye  hear  in  all 

things  whatsoever  he  shall, say  unto  you. 

Acts  vii.  37,  38. — 37  This  is  that  Moses  which  said  unto 
the  children  of  Israel,  A  Prophet  shall  the  Lord  your  God 
raise  up  unto  you  of  your  brethren,  like  unto  me ;  him 
shall  ye  hear.  38  This  is  he,  that  was  in  the  church  in 
the  wilderness  with  the  angel  which  spake  to  him  in  the 
mount  Sina,  and  with  our  fathers :  who  received  the  lively 

oracles  to  give  unto  us. 

Acts  xv.  21.  For  Moses  of  old  time  hath  in  every  city 
them  that  preach  him,  being  read  in  the  synagogues  every 

sabbath  day. 

Matt.  xii.  17,  18.— 17  That  it  might  be  fulfilled  which 
was  spoken  by  Esaias  the  prophet,  saying,  18  Behold  my 
servant,  whom  I  have  chosen;  my  beloved,  in  whom  my 
soul  is  well  pleased :  I  will  put  my  Spirit  upon  him,  and 
he  shall  shew  judgment  to  the  Gentiles. 

Luke  iii.  4. — As  it  is  written  in  the  book  of  the  words 
of  Esaias  the  prophet,  saying,  The  voice  of  one  crying  m 
the  wilderness,  Prepare  ye  the  way  of  the  Lord,  ma  e  is 

paths  straight.  _  ,  . 

Luke  iv.  17,  18. — 17  And  there  was  delivered  unto  mm 

the  book  of  the  prophet  Esaias.  And  when  he  had  opened 

the  book,  he  found  the  place  where  it  was  written,  18  e 

Spirit  of  the  Lord  is  upon  me,  because  he  hath  anoin 


102 


me  to  preach  the  gospel  to  the  poor ;  he  hath  sent  me  to 
heal  the  broken-hearted,  to  preach  deliverance  to  the  cap¬ 
tives,  and  recovering  of  sight  to  the  blind,  to  set  at  liberty 
them  that  are  bruised. 

John  xii.  38,  41. — 38  That  the  saying  of  Esaias  the  pro¬ 
phet  might  be  fulfilled,  which  he  spake,  Lord,  who  hath 
believed  our  report?  and  to  whom  hath  the  arm  of  the 
Lord  been  revealed?  41  These  things  said  Esaias,  when 
he  saw  his  glory  and  spake  of  him, 

Horn.  x.  16,  20. — 16  But  they  have  not  all  obeyed  the 
gospel.  For  Esaias  saith,  Lord,  who  hath  believed  our 
report?  20  But  Esaias  is  very  bold,  and  saith,  I  was  found 
of  them  that  sought  me  not ;  I  was  made  manifest  unto 
them  that  asked  not  after  me. 

These  statements  are  contrary  to  our  Standards, 
Confession  of  Faith,  Chap  I.,  Secs.  VIII.,  IX. 

VIII.  The  Old  Testament  in  Hebrew,  (which  was  the 
native  language  of  the  people  of  Gfod  of  old,)  and  the  New 
Testament  in  Greek,  (which  at  the  time  of  the  writing 
of  it  was  most  generally  known  to  the  nations,)  being 
immediately  inspired  by  God,  and  by  his  singular  care 
and  providence,  kept  pure  in  all  ages,  are  therefore  authen- 
tical ;  so  as  in  all  controversies  of  religion  the  church  is 
finally  to  apx>eal  unto  them.  But  because  these  original 
tongues  are  not  known  to  all  the  jDeople  of  God  who  have 
right  unto,  and  interest  in  the  Scriptures,  and  are  com¬ 
manded,  in  the  fear  of  God,  to  read  and  search  them, 
therefore  they  are  to  be  translated  into  the  vulgar  lan¬ 
guage  of  every  nation  into  which  they  come,  that  the 
word  of  God  dwelling  plentifully  in  all,  they  may  worship 
him  in  an  acceptable  manner,  and  through  patience  and 
comfort  of  the  Scriptures  may  have  hope. 

IX.  The  infallible  rule  of  interpretation  of  Scripture  is 
the  Scripture  itself ;  and,  therefore,  when  there  is  a  ques- 


103 


tion  about  the  true  and  full  sense  of  any  scripture,  (which 
is  not  manifold,  but  one,)  it  may  be  searched  and  known 
by  other  places  that  speak  more  clearly. 

SPECIFICATION  VII. 

Dr.  Briggs  teaches  that  predictive  prophecy  has  been 
reversed  by  history,  and  that  much  of  it  has  not  and  never 
can  be  fulfilled. 

INAUGURAL  ADDRESS. 

Page  38,  “  Another  barrier  to  the  Bible  has  been  the 
interpretation  put  upon  Predictive  Prophecy ,  making  it  a 
sort  of  history  before  the  time,  and  looking  anxiously 
for  the  fulfillment  of  the  details  of  Biblical  prediction. 
Kuenen  has  shown  that  if  we  insist  upon  the  fulfillment 
of  the  details  of  the  predictive  prophecy  of  the  Old  Testa¬ 
ment,  many  of  these  predictions  have  been  reversed  by 
history ;  and  the  great  body  of  the  Messianic  prediction 
has  not  only  never  been  fulfilled,  but  cannot  now  be  ful¬ 
filled,  for  the  reason  that  its  own  time  has  passed  forever.” 

These  statements  are  contrary  to  the  Scriptures : 

Ps.  cv.  8.  He  hath  remembered  his  covenant  for  ever, 
the  word  which  he  commanded  to  a  thousand  generations. 

Matt.  ii.  5,  6,  17,  18,  23.-5  And  they  said  unto  him, 
In  Bethlehem  of  Judea:  for  thus  it  is  written  by  the 
prophet.  6  And  thou  Bethlehem,  in  the  land  of  Juda, 
art  not  the  least  among  the  princes  of  J uda :  for  out  of 
thee  shall  come  a  Governor,  that  shall  rule  my  people 
Israel.  17  Then  was  fulfilled  that  which  was  spoken  by 
Jeremy  the  prophet,  saying,  18  In  Rama  was  there  a 
voice  heard,  lamentation,  and  weeping,  and  great  mourn¬ 
ing,  Rachel  weeping  for  her  children,  and  would  not  be 
comforted,  because  they  are  not.  23  And  he  came  and 
dwelt  in  a  city  called  Nazareth :  that  it  might  be  fulfilled 


104 


which  was  spoken  by  the  prophets,  He^shalljbe  called  a 
Nazarene. 

Matty.  17, 18. — 17  Think  not  that  I  am"come  to  destroy 
the  law,  or  the  prophets  :  I  am  not  come" to"  destroy,  but  to 
fulfil.  18  For  verily  I  say  unto  you,  Till  heaven  and 
earth  pass,  one  jot  or  one  tittle  shall  in  no  wise  pass  from 
the  law,  till  all  be  fulfilled. 

Matt.  xxi.  4,  5. — 4  All  this  was  done,  that  it  might  be 
fulfilled  which  was  spoken  by  the  prophet,  saying,  5 
Tell  ye  the  daughter  of  Sion,  Behold,  thy  King  cometh 
unto  thee,  meek,  and  sitting  upon*  an  ass,  and  a  colt  the 
foal  of  an  ass. 

Matt.  xxiv.  15.  When  ye  therefore  shall  see  the 
abomination  of  desolation,  spoken  of  by  Daniel  the 
prophet,  stand  in  the  holy  place,  *  (whoso  readeth,  let  him 
understand.) 

Dan.  xii.  11.  And  from  the  time  that  the  daily  sacrifice 
shall  be  taken  away,  and  the  abomination  that  maketh 
desolate  set  up,  there  shall  be  a  thousand  two  hundred 
and  ninety  days. 

Matt.  iii.  3.  For  this  is  he  that  was  spoken  of  by  the 
prophet  Esaias,  saying,  The  voice  of  one  crying  in  the 
wilderness,  Prepare  ye  the  way  of  the  Lord,  make  his 
paths  straight. 

Matt.  xxvi.  54,  56  — 54  But  how  then  shall  the  Script¬ 
ures  be  fulfilled,  that  thus  it  must  be?  56  But  all  this 
was  done,  that  the  Scriptures  of  the  prophets  might 
be  fulfilled.  Then  all  the  disciples  forsook  him,  and 
fled. 

Matt,  xxvii.  9,  35. — 9  Then  was  fulfilled  that  which  was 
spoken  by  Jeremy  the  prophet,  saying,  And  they  took 
the  thirty  pieces  of  silver,  the  price  of  him  that  was 
valued,  whom  they  of  the  children  of  Israel  did  value :  35 
And  they  crucified  him,  and  parted  his  garments,  casting 
lots :  that  it  might  be  fulfilled  which  was  spoken  by  the 


105 


prophet,  They  parted  my  garments  among  them,  and  upon 

my  vesture  did  they  cast  lots. 

Mark  xv.  28.  And  the  Scripture  was  fulfilled,  which 
saith,  And  he  was  numbered  with  the  transgressors. 

Luke  iv.  21.  And  he  began  to  say  unto  them,  This  day 

is  this  Scripture  fulfilled  in  your  ears. 

Luke  xvi.  17.  And  it  is  easier  for  heaven  and  earth  to 
pass,  than  one  tittle  of  the  law  to  fail. 

Luke  xviii.  31.  Then  he  took  unto  him  the  twelve,  and 
said  unto  them,  Behold,  we  go  up  to  Jerusalem,  and  all 
things  that  are  written  by  the  prophets  concerning  the  Son 

of  man  shall  be  accomplished. 

Luke  xxi.  22.  For  these  be  the  days  of  vengeance, 
that  all  things  which  are  written  may  be  fulfilled. 

Luke  xxiv.  26,  27,  4*4.— 26  Ought  not  Christ  to  have 
suffered  these  things,  and  to  enter  into  his  glory?  27 
And  beginning  at  Moses  and  all  the  prophets,  he  expounded 
unto  them  in  all  the  Scriptures  the  things  concerning  him¬ 
self.  44  And  he  said  unto  them,  Thes^  are  the  words 
which  I  spake  unto  you,  while  I  was  yet  with  you,  that 
all  things  must  be  fulfilled,  which  were  written  in  the 
law  of  Moses,  and  in  the  prophets,  and  in  the  psalms, 

concerning  me. 

John  xviii.  32.  That  the  saying  of  Jesus  might  be  ful¬ 
filled,  which  he  spake,  signifying  what  death  he  should 

die. 

John  xix.  24.  They  said  therefore  among  themselves, 
Let  us  not  rend  it,  but  cast  lots  for  it,  whose  it  shall  be . 
that  the  Scripture  might  be  fulfilled,  which  saith,  They 
parted  my  raiment  among  them,  and  for  my  vesture  they 
did  cast  lots.  These  things  therefore  the  soldiers  did. 

John  xii.  16.  These  things  understood  not  his  disciples 
at  the  first:  but  when  Jesus  was  glorified,  then  remem¬ 
bered  they  that  these  things  were  written  of  lnm,  and 
that  they  had  done  these  things  unto  him. 


106 


1  Pet.  i.  10,  11. — 10  Of  which  salvation  the  prophets 
have  inquired  and  searched  diligently,  who  prophesied  of 
the  grace  that  should  coTiie  unto  you  :  11  Searching  what, 
or  what  manner  of  time  the  Spirit  of  Christ  which  was  in 
them  did  signify,  when  it  testified  beforehand  the  suffer¬ 
ings  of  Christ,  and  the  glory  that  should  follow. 

Act.  iii.  18.  But  those  things,  which  God  before  had 
shewed  by  the  month  of  all  his  prophets,  that  Christ 
should  suffer,  he  hath  so  fulfilled. 

2  Pet.  i.  19.  We  have  also  a  more  sure  word  of  pro¬ 
phecy  ;  whereunto  ye  do  well  that  ye  take  heed,  as  unto  a 
light  that  shineth  in  a  dark  place,  uutil  the  day  dawn,  and 
the  day  star  arise  in  your  hearts. 

These  statements  are  contrary  to  our  Standards. 
Confession  of  Faith,  Chap.  I.,  Secs.  IV.,  V. 

IV .  The  authority  of  the  Holy  Scripture,  for  which  it 
ought  to  be  believed  and  obeyed,  dependeth  not  upon  the 
testimony  of  any  man  or  church,  but  wholly  upon  God, 
(who  is  truth  itself,)  the  author  thereof;  and  therefore  it 
is  to  be  received,  because  it  is  the  word  of  God. 

V.  We  may  be  moved  and  induced  by  the  testimony  of 
the  church  to  an  high  an  reverent  esteem  for  the  Holy 
Scripture ;  and  the  heavenliness  of  the  matter,  the  efficacy 
of  the  doctrine,  the  majesty  of  the  style,  the  consent  of  all 
the  parts,  the  scope  of  the  whole,  (which  is  to  give  all 
glory  to  God,)  the  full  discovery  it  makes  of  the  only  way 
of  man’s  salvation,  the  many  other  incomparable  excel¬ 
lencies,  and  the  entire  perfection  thereof,  are  arguments 
whereby  it  doth  abundantly  evidence  itself  to  be  the  word 
of  God  ;  yet,  notwithstanding,  our  full  persuasion  and 
assurance  of  the  infallible  truth,  and  divine  authority 
thereof,  is  from  the  inward  work  of  the  Holy  Spirit,  bear¬ 
ing  witness  by  and  with  the  word  in  our  hearts. 


107 


Shorter  Catechism,  4. 

Q.  4.  What  is  GOD  f 

A.  God  is  a  Spirit,  infinite,  eternal,  and  unchangeable, 
in  his  being,  wisdom,  power,  holiness,  justice,  goodness 
and  truth. 

Charge  II. 

The  Presbyterian  Church  in  the  United  States  of  America 
charges  the  Reverend  Charles  A.  Briggs,  D.D.,  being  a 
Minister  of  the  Presbyterian  Church  and  a  member  of  the 
Presbytery  of  New  York,  with  teaching  a  doctrine  of  the 
character,  state  and  sanctification  of  believers  aftei  death, 
which  irreconcilably  conflicts  with  and  is  contrary  to  the 
Holy  Scriptures  and  the  Standards  of  the  Presbyterian 

Church. 

SPECIFIC  A  TI ON. 

In  the  said  inaugural  address,  delivered,  published, 
extensively  circulated  and  republished  as  above  described, 
Dr.  Briggs  teaches  as  follows  : 

INAUGURAL  ADDRESS. 

Pages  53,  54,  55,  “  Another  fault  of  Protestant  theology 
is  in  its  limitation  of  the  process  of  redemption  to  this 
world,  and  its  neglect  of  those  vast  periods  of  time  which 
have  elapsed  for  most  men  in  the  Middle  State  between 
death  and  the  resurrection.  The  Roman  Catholic  Church 
is  firmer  here,  though  it  smears  the  Biblical  doctrine  with 
not  a  few  hurtful  errors.  The  reaction  against  this  limita¬ 
tion,  as  seen  in  the  theory  of  second  probation,  is  not  sur¬ 
prising.  I  do  not  find  this  doctrine  in  the  Bible,  but  I  do 
find  in  the  Bible  the  doctrine  of  a  Middle  State  of  con¬ 
scious  higher  life  in  the  communion  with  Christ  and  the 
multitude  of  the  departed  of  all  ages ;  and  of  the  neces- 
sity  of  entire  sanctification,  in  order  tliat  the  wor  o 
redemption  may  be  completed.  There  is  no  authority  in 


108 


the  Scriptures,  or  in  the  creeds  of  Christendom,  for  the 
doctrine  of  immediate  sanctification  at  death.  The  only 
sanctification  known  to  experience,  to  Christian  ortho¬ 
doxy,  and  to  the  Bible,  is  progressive  sanctification.  Pro¬ 
gressive  sanctification  after  death,  is  the  doctrine  of  the 
Bible  and  the  Church ;  and  it  is  of  vast  importance  in  our 
times  that  we  should  understand  it,  and  live  in  accordance 
with  it.  The  bugbear  of  a  judgment  immediately  after 
death,  and  the  illusion  of  a  magical  transformation  in  the 
dying  hour  should  be  banished  from  the  world.  They  are 
conceits  derived  from  the  Ethnic  religions,  and  without 
basis  in  the  Bible  or  Christian  experience  as  expressed  in 
the  symbols  of  the  Church.  The  former  makes  death  a 
terror  to  the  best  of  men,  the  latter  makes  human  life  and 
experience  of  no  effect ;  and  both  cut  the  nerves  of  Chris¬ 
tian  activity  and  striving  after  sanctification.  Renouncing 
them,  as  hurtful,  unchristian  errors,  we  look  with  hope 
and  joy  for  the  continuation  of  the  processes  of  grace,  and 
the  wonders  of  redemption  in  the  company  of  the  blessed, 
to  which  the  faithful  are  all  hastening.” 

Inaugural  Address,  Appendix,  2d  ed.,  pages  107,  108, 
“  Sanctification  has  two  sides — a  negative  and  a  positive — 
mortification  and  verification ;  the  former  is  manward ,  the 
latter  is  Grodward.  Believers  who  enter  the  middle  state 
enter  guiltless ;  they  are  pardoned  and  justified ;  they  are 
mantled  in  the  blood  and  righteousness  of  Christ;  and 
nothing  will  be  able  to  separate  them  from  His  love. 
They  are  also  delivered  from  all  temptations  such  as  spring 
from  without,  from  the  world  and  the  devil.  They  are 
encircled  with  influences  for  good  such  as  they  have  never 
enjoyed  before.  But  they  are  still  the  same  persons,  with 
all  the  gifts  and  graces,  and  also  the  same  habits  of  mind, 
disposition  and  temper  they  had  when  they  left  the  world. 
Death  destroys  the  body.  It  does  not  change  the  moral 
and  religious  nature  of  man.  It  is  unpsychological  and 


109 


unethical  to  suppose  that  the  character  of  the  disem¬ 
bodied  spirit  will  all  be  changed  in  the  moment  of  death. 
It  is  the  Manichean  heresy  to  hold  that  sin  belongs  to  the 
physical  organization  and  is  laid  aside  with  the  body.  If 
this  were  so,  how  can  any  of  our  race  carry  theii  evil 
natures  with  them  into  the  middle  state  and  incui  the  pun¬ 
ishment  of  their  sins  ?  The  eternal  punishment  of  a  man 
whose  evil  nature  has  been  stripped  from  him  by  death 
and  left  in  the  grave,  is  an  absurdity.  The  Plymouth 
Brethren  hold  that  there  are  two  natures  in  the  redeemed— 
the  old  man  and  the  new.  In  accordance  with  such  a 
theory,  the  old  man  might  be  cast  off  at  death.  But  this  is 
only  a  more  subtle  kind  of  Manicheism,  which  has  ever 
been  regarded  as  heretical.  Sin,  as  our  Saviour  teaches, 
has  its  source  in  the  heart — in  the  higher  and  immortal 
part  of  man.  It  is  the  work  of  sanctification  to  o\ei 

come  sin  in  the  higher  nature. 


This  doctrine  is  contrary  to  the  Scripture : 

John  i.  29.  The  next  day  John  seeth  Jesus  coming 
unto  him,  and  saith,  Behold  the  Lamb  of  God,  which 
taketh  away  the  sin  of  the  world ! 

Luke  xvi.  22,  26.-22  And  it  came  to  pass,  that  the 
beggar  died,  and  was  carried  by  the  angels  into  Abraham’s 
bosom:  the  rich  man  also  died,  and  was  buried;  26  An 
beside  all  this,  between  us  and  you  there  is  a  great  gu 
fixed :  so  that  they  which  would  pass  from  hence  to  you 
cannot ;  neither  can  they  pass  to  us,  that  would  come  from 

thence 

2  Cor  v.  1  to  10. _ 1  For  we  know  that,  if  our  eaithly 

house  of  this  tabernacle  were  dissolved,  we  have  a  build¬ 
ing  of  God,  a  house  not  made  with  hands,  eterna  m  ie 
heavens.  2  For  in  this  we  groan,  earnestly  desiring  o 
clothed  upon  with  our  house  which  is  from  leaven 
so  be  that  being  clothed  we  shall  not  be  found  naked. 


110 


4  For  we  that  are  in  this  tabernacle  do  groan,  being  bur¬ 
dened  :  not  for  that  we  would  be  unclothed,  but  clothed 
upon,  that  mortality  might  be  swallowed  up  of  life. 

5  Now  he  that  has  wrought  us  for  the  selfsame  thing  is 
God,  who  also  hath  given  unto  us  the  earnest  of  the  Spirit. 

6  Therefore  we  are  always  confident,  knowing  that,  whilst 
we  are  at  home  in  the  body,  we  are  absent  from  the  Lord : 

7  (For  we  walk  by  faith,  not  by  sight:)  8  We  are  confi¬ 
dent,  I  say ,  and  willing  rather  to  be  absent  from  the 
body,  and  to  be  present  with  the  Lord.  9  Wherefore 
we  labour,  that,  whether  present  or  absent,  we  may  be 
accepted  of  him.  10  For  we  must  all  appear  before  the 
judgment  seat  of  Christ ;  that  every  one  may  receive  the 
things  done  in  Ms  body,  according  to  that  he  hath  done, 
whether  it  be  good  or  bad. 

Matt.  xxvi.  41. — 41  Watch  and  pray,  that  ye  enter  not 
into  temptation  :  the  spirit  indeed  is  willing,  but  the  flesh 
is  weak. 

1  John  iii.  2,  9,  10. — 2  Beloved,  now  are  we  the  sons  of 
God,  and  it  doth  not  yet  appear  what  we  shall  be :  but  we 
know  that,  when  he  shall  appear,  we  shall  be  like  him : 
for  we  shall  see  him  as  he  is.  9  Whosoever  is  born  of 
God  doth  not  commit  sin:  for  his  seed  remaineth  in  him  : 
and  he  cannot  commit  sin,  because  he  is  born  of  God. 
10  In  this  the  children  of  God  are  manifest,  and  the  chil¬ 
dren  of  the  devil :  whosoever  doeth  not  righteousness  is 
not  of  God,  neither  he  that  loveth  not  his  brother. 

1  Tim.  iv.  7,  8. — 7  But  refuse  profane  and  old  wives’ 
fables,  and  exercise  thyself  rather  unto  godliness.  8  For 
bodily  exercise  profiteth  little  :  but  godliness  is  profitable 
unto  all  things,  having  promise  of  the  life  that  now  is, 
and  of  that  which  is  to  come. 

Rev.  iii.  4,  5. — 4  Thou  hast  a  few  names  even  in  Sar¬ 
dis  which  have  not  defiled  their  garments ;  and  they  shall 
walk  with  me  in  white  :  for  they  are  worthy.  5  He  that 


Ill 


overcometh,  the  same  shall  be  clothed  in  white  raiment ; 
and  I  will  not  blot  ont  his  name  ont  of  the  book  of  life, 
bnt  I  will  confess  his  name  before  my  Father,  and  before 
his  angels. 

Rev.  vii.  9,  18,  14. — 9  After  this  I  beheld,  and,  lo,  a 
great  multitude,  which  no  man  could  number,  of  all 
nations,  and  kindreds,  and  people,  and  tongues,  stood 
before  the  throne,  and  before  the  Lamb,  clothed  with 
white  robes,  and  palms  in  their  hands ;  13  And  one  of  the 
elders  answered,  saying  unto  me,  What  are  these  which 
are  arrayed  in  white  robes?  and  whence  came  they? 
14  And  I  said  unto  him,  Sir,  thou  knowest.  And  he  said 
to  me,  These  are  they  which  came  out  of  great  tribulation, 
and  have  washed  their  robes,  and  made  them  white  in  the 
blood  of  the  Lamb. 

Rev.  xiv.  13.  And  I  heard  a  voice  from  heaven  saying 
unto  me,  Write,  Blessed  are  the  dead  which  die  in  the 
Lord  from  henceforth ;  Yea,  saith  the  Spirit,  that  they 
may  rest  from  their  labours ;  and  their  works  do  follow 
them. 

Rev.  xix.  8.  And  to  her  was  granted  that  she  should 
be  arrayed  in  fine  linen,  clean  and  white :  for  the  fine 
linen  is  the  righteousness  of  saints. 

Heb.  xii.  23.  To  the  general  assembly  and  church  of 
the  firstborn,  which  are  written  in  heaven,  and  to  God 
the  Judge  of  all,  and  to  the  spirits  of  just  men  made 
perfect. 

Eph.  v.  26,  27. — 26  That  he  might  sanctify  and  cleanse 
it  with  the  washing  of  water  by  the  word.  27  That  he 
might  present  it  to  himself  a  glorious  church,  not  having 
spot,  or  wrinkle,  or  any  such  thing ;  but  that  it  should  be 
holy  and  without  blemish. 

1  Cor.  xv.  51,  52.— 51  Behold,  I  shew  you  a  mystery; 
We  shall  not  all  sleep,  but  we  shall  all  be  changed.  52  In 
a  moment,  in  the  twinkling  of  an  eye,  at  the  last  trunpp : 


112 


for  the  trumpet  shall  sound,  and  the  dead  shall  be  raised 
incorruptible,  and  we  shall  be  changed. 

1  Thess.  iv.  16,  17. — 16  For  the  Lord  himself  shall 
descend  from  heaven  with  a  shout,  with  the  voice  of  the 
archangel,  and  with  the  trump  of  God :  and  the  dead  in 
Christ  shall  rise  first :  17  Then  we  which  are  alive  and 

remain  shall  be  caught  up  together  with  them  in  the  clouds, 
to  meet  the  Lord  in  the  air :  and  so  shall  we  ever  be  with 
the  Lord. 

Eph.  iii.  15,  16. — 15  Of  whom  the  whole  family  in 
heaven  and  earth  is  named,  16  That  he  would  grant  you, 
according  to  the  riches  of  his  glory,  to  be  strengthened 
with  might  by  his  Spirit  in  the  inner  man. 

This  doctrine  is  contrary  to  our  Standards, 

Confession  of  Faith,  Chap.  XXXII.,  Sec.  I. 

I.  The  bodies  of  men,  after  death,  return  to  dust,  and 
see  corruption ;  but  their  souls  (which  neither  die  nor  sleep), 
having  an  immortal  subsistence,  immediately  return  to 
God  who  gave  them.  The  souls  of  the  righteous,  being 
then  made  perfect  in  holiness,  are  received  into  the  highest 
heavens,  where  they  behold  the  face  of  God  in  light  and 
glory,  waiting  for  the  full  redemption  of  their  bodies : 
and  the  souls  of  the  wicked  are  cast  into  hell,  where  they 
remain  in  torments  and  utter  darkness,  reserved  to  the 
judgment  of  the  great  day.  Besides  these  two  places 
for  souls  separated  from  their  bodies,  the  Scripture 
acknowledged  none. 

Larger  Catechism,  86. 

Q.  86.  What  is  the  communion  in  glory  with  Christ , 
which  the  members  of  the  invisible  church  enjoy  immedi¬ 
ately  after  death  f 

A.  The  communion  in  glory  with  Christ,  which  the 
members  of  the  invisible  church  enjoy  immediately  after 


113 


death,  is  in  that  their  souls  are  then  made  perfect  in  holi¬ 
ness,  and  received  into  the  highest  heavens,  where  they 
behold  the  face  of  God  in  light  and  glory ;  waiting  for  the 
full  redemption  of  their  bodies,  which  even  in  death  con¬ 
tinue  united  to  Christ,  and  rest  in  their  graves  as  in  their 
beds,  till  at  the  last  day  they  be  again  united  to  their 
souls.  Whereas  the  souls  of  the  wicked  are  at  their  death 
cast  into  hell,  where  they  remain  in  torments  and  utter 
darkness ;  and  their  bodies  kept  in  their  graves  as  in  their 
prisons,  until  the  resurrection  and  judgment  of  the  great 

day. 

Shorter  Catechism,  37. 

Q.  37.  What  benefit  do  believers  receive  from  Christ  at 
their  death  f 

A.  The  souls  of  believers  are  at  their  death  made  per- 
feet  in  holiness,  and  do  immediately  pass  into  glory ;  and 
their  bodies,  being  still  united  to  Christ,  do  rest  m  their 
graves  till  the  resurrection. 


I  hereby  certify  that  the  foregoing  is  an  authentic  copy 
of  the  Charges  and  Specifications  against  Prof.  Charles  A. 
Briggs,  which  the  Presbytery  of  New  York  has  ordered 

shall  be  prosecuted. 

(Signed)  John  C.  Bliss, 

Moderator . 


Oct.  6th,  1891. 


114 


PRESBYTERY  OF  NEW  YORK. 


IN  THE  MATTER  OF  THE  PRESBYTERIAN  CHURCH 
IN  THE  UNITED  STATES  OF  AMERICA 

against 

THE  REV.  CHARLES  A.  BRIGGS,  D.D. 

Citation. 

To  the  Rev.  Charles  A.  Briggs,  D.D. : 

You  are  hereby  furnished  with  a  copy  of  the  Charges 
and  Specifications  presented  to  this  Presbytery  on  the 
fifth  day  of  October,  1891,  by  the  Committee  of  Prosecu¬ 
tion  appointed  by  the  Presbytery  of  New  York,  at  its 
meeting  in  May  last,  which  report  with  its  accompanying 
recommendations  were  accepted  and  adopted  by  this  Pres¬ 
bytery  on  the  said  fifth  day  of  October,  1891. 

In  compliance  with  the  said  action  of  the  Presbytery, 
and  with  the  provisions  of  Section  19  of  the  Book  of  Dis 
cipline  of  the  Presbyterian  Church  in  the  United  States  of 
America,  you  are  hereby  cited  to  appear  at  a  meeting  of 
the  Presbytery  of  New  York  to  be  held  in  the  Scotch 
Presbyterian  Church,  on  Wednesday,  the  fourth  day  of 
November,  1891,  at  10  oTclock  A.M.,  to  plead  or  make 
answer  to  said  Charges  and  Specifications,  and  to  proceed 
to  trial  upon  said  Charges  and  Specifications. 

(Signed)  John  C.  Bliss, 

,T  Moderator. 

New  York,  October  6th,  1891. 

Meeting  of  November  4tii,  1891. 

At  a  meeting  of  the  Presbytery  of  New  York,  held 
November  4th,  1891,  Mr.  L.  W.  How  was,  on  motion, 
chosen  by  the  Presbytery  as  stenographer. 


115 


The  General  Rules  for  Judicatories,  in  the  Book  of 
Discipline,  as  amended  in  1885,  were  on  motion  adopted. 

Presbytery  now  sat  in  a  judicial  capacity  and  the  Moder¬ 
ator  solemnly  announced  from  the  chair,  that  the  body  is 
about  to  pass  to  the  consideration  of  the  business  assigned 
for  trial,  and  he  enjoined  on  the  members  to  recollect  and 
regard  their  high  character  as  judges  of  a  Court  of  Jesus 
Christ,  and  the  solemn  duty  in  which  they  were  about  to 
act. 

Dr.  Briggs  was  then  asked  by  the  Moderator  whether 
he  wished  Counsel?  He  said  he  did  not. 

Dr.  Briggs  being  called  upon  to  make  return  to  the 
Citation,  then  proceeded  to  file  objections  against  the 
sufficiency  of  the  Charges  and  Specifications  in  form  and 
in  legal  effect,  as  follows  : 

“RESPONSE  TO  THE  CHARGES  AND  SPECIFICA¬ 
TIONS. 

Mr.  Moderator,  Ministers,  and  Elders  of  the  Pres¬ 
bytery  of  New  York  : 

Gentlemen  :  I  appear  before  you  at  this  time  in  com¬ 
pliance  with  your  citation,  dated  October  6,  1891,  to  plead 
to  the  charges  and  specifications  placed  in  my  hands  by 
the  Presbytery  at  that  time.  It  is  now  my  right,  in 
accordance  with  the  Book  of  Discipline,  §  22,  to  “file 
objections,”  if  I  have  any,  “to  the  regularity  of  the 
organization,  or  to  the  jurisdiction  of  the  judicatory,  or  to 
the  sufficiency  of  the  charges  and  specifications  in  form 
and  in  legal  effect,  or  any  other  substantial  objection 
affecting  the  order  or  regularity  of  the  proceeding. 5  ’ 

I  have  no  objections  to  the  regularity  of  the  organiza¬ 
tion,  or  to  the  jurisdiction  of  the  Presbytery  of  New 
York;  but  it  is  necessary,  both  in  my  own  interest  and  in 


116 


the  interest  of  the  order  and  regularity  of  the  judicial  pro¬ 
ceedings  in  the  Presbytery,  to  file  objections  “to  the 
sufficiency  of  the  charges  and  specifications  in  form  5  ’  and 
“  in  legal  effect.  ” 

It  is  far  from  my  purpose  to  raise  any  objections  of  a 
technical  kind,  that  may  in  any  way  directly  or  indirectly 
delay  the  probation  of  charges  that  are  approved  as  suffi¬ 
cient,  and  specifications  that  are  recognized  as  relevant  by 
the  Presbytery  of  New  York;  but  the  order  of  the  Book 
of  Discipline  requires  that  the  question  of  relevancy  should 
first  be  decided  by  the  Presbytery,  before  I  can  with  pro¬ 
priety  plead  “guilty,”  or  “  not  guilty.” 

No  one  has  made  this  clearer  than  the  Rev.  E.  R. 
Craven,  D.D.,  the  chairman  of  the  Committee  of  the 
General  Assembly  which  prepared  the  present  Book  of 
Discipline,  when  he  said  : 

‘  ‘  In  every  trial  there  are  two  issues :  first,  do  the  facts 
alleged,  if  true,  sustain  the  charge?  and,  second,  are  the 
facts  true?  Ordinarily  the  affirmative  of  the  former 
question  is  tacitly  assumed  by  both  the  judicatory  and 
the  accused  person.  In  such  cases  the  only  question  to  be 
decided  is  the  latter.  Cases  sometimes  arise,  however, 
especially  where  there  is  an  individual  prosecutor,  in 
which  both  issues  must  be  tried.  They  cannot,  with  pro¬ 
priety,  be  tried  together,  for  one  is  a  question  of  law,  the 
other  of  evidence.  In  such  cases  it  is  manifest  wisdom  to 
dispose  of  the  legal  question  first,  and  thus  possibly  pre¬ 
vent  a  useless  waste  of  time  and  laceration  of  feeling.  ’  ’ — 
Presbyterian  Review,  1884,  p.  57. 

Adopting  the  course  thus  recommended,  I  do  hereby 
file  the  following  objections  to  the  “sufficiency  of  the 
charges  and  specifications  in  form  and  in  legal  effect. 5  ’ 

I.— THE  PREAMBLE. 

The  Report  of  the  Committee  of  the  Presbytery,  which 
presented  the  charges  and  specifications,  contains  in  its 


117 


preamble,  intimation  of  charges  and  specifications  which 
they  have  not  proposed  for  trial,  as  follows  : 

“  It  has  been  decided  by  your  committee  that  it  is 
neither  necessary  nor  advisable  to  embrace  in  the  list  of 
charges  all  the  doctrinal  errors  contained  in  the  inaugural 
address,  and,  while  its  teachings  respecting  miracles,  the 
original  condition  of  man,  the  nature  of  sin,  race  redemp¬ 
tion,  and  Dr.  Briggs’  scheme  of  Biblical  theology  in 
general,  are  not  in  harmony  with  the  Scriptures,  and  are 
calculated  to  weaken  confidence  in  the  W ord  of  God,  and 
to  encourage  presumption  on  the  clemency  and  long- 
suffering  of  God,  yet,  in  order  that  we  may  avoid  an 
undue  extension  of  the  trial,  and  the  confusion  of  thought 
that  might  follow  an  attempt  to  compass  all  the  errors 
contained  in  said  address,  we  have  deemed  it  best  to  con¬ 
fine  attention  to  a  few  departures  from  the  teachings  of  the 
Scriptures  which  are  fundamental  to  the  entire  discussion. 

“  Furthermore,  your  committee  is  not  unmindful  of  the 
fact  that  the  erroneous  and  ill-advised  utterances  of  Dr. 
Briggs  in  the  inaugural  address  have  seriously  disturbed 
the  peace  of  the  Church  and  led  to  a  situation  full  of 
difficulty  and  complication,  and  have  produced  such  wide¬ 
spread  uneasiness  and  agitation  throughout  the  Church  as 
to  cause  sixty -three  Presbyteries  to  overture  the  General 
Assembly  with  reference  to  the  same,  yet  for  the  reasons 
above  given  we  have  determined  not  to  include  this  grave 
offence  against  the  peace  of  the  Church  in  the  list  of  for¬ 
mal  charges  ”  (pp.  4,  5). 

I  object  (1)  that,  if  there  are  any  such  errors  contained 
in  my  inaugural  address  as  the  committee  allege  in  the 
preamble  of  their  Deport,  it  was  their  duty  to  formulate 
them  into  charges  and  specifications  sufficient  in  form  and 
in  legal  effect. 

(2.)  That,  if  the  committee  did  not  think  best  so  to  do, 
they  should  have  refrained  from  alleging  doctrinal  errors 


118 


which  they  did  not  propose  to  submit  to  probation,  and 
which  so  alleged  without  opportunity  of  refutation,  seem 
calculated  to  exert  prejudice  against  me  in  the  minds  of 
the  members  of  the  court. 

(3.)  That,  if  as  the  Report  alleges,  “  The  erroneous  and 
ill-advised  utterances  of  Dr.  Briggs  in  the  inaugural 
address  have  seriously  disturbed  the  peace  of  the  Church,  ’  * 
and,  these  constitute  a  ‘  c  grave  offence  against  the  peace 
of  the  Church,  ’ 5  it  was  the  duty  of  the  committee  to  for¬ 
mulate  this  grave  offence  into  a  charge  and  specification 
‘ ‘  sufficient  in  form  and  legal  effect. 5  ’ 

(4.)  That,  if  it  was  not  deemed  best  so  to  do,  the 
Report  should  have  refrained  from  alleging  a  grave 
offence  which  was  not  proposed  for  probation,  the  alle¬ 
gation  of  which  might  prejudice  the  decision  of  those 
charges  and  specifications  offered  for  probation. 

The  Presbytery  are  requested  therefore  to  blot  out 
from  the  Report  these  insinuations  and  imputations  of 
doctrinal  errors  and  grave  offence. 

If  I  have  any  way,  directly  or  indirectly,  been  the 
occasion  of  disturbing  the  peace  of  the  Church,  I  deeply 
regret  it.  If  I  have  given  pain  and  anxiety  to  my 
brethren  in  the  ministry,  or  to  the  people  of  Christ’s 
Church,  by  any  utterances  in  the  inaugural  address,  I  am 
very  sorry.  But  after  repeated  rereadings  of  the  address, 
away  from  the  seat  of  strife,  in  a  foreign  land,  I  cannot 
honestly  say  that  there  are  any  such  doctrinal  errors  in 
the  address  as  the  Report  alleges,  and  at  the  bar  of  my 
own  conscience,  I  feel  no  guilt  as  regards  the  grave  offence 
of  disturbing  the  peace  and  harmony  of  the  Church. 

II.— THE  CHARGES. 

I  object  “  to  the  sufficiency  of  the  Charges  ”  “in  form  ” 
and  “  legal  effect.” 


119 


The  rules  relating  to  the  charge  in  the  Book  of  Disci¬ 
pline  are (1 . )  “  The  charge  shall  set  forth  the  alleged 
offence”  (§  15);  (2.)  “A  charge  shall  not  allege  more 
than  one  offence”  (§16);  (3.)  The  supreme  court  of  the 
Church  has  decided  that  ‘  ‘  All  charges  for  heresy  should  be 
as  definite  as  possible.  The  article  or  articles  of  faith 
impugned  should  be  specified,  and  the  words  supposed  to  be 
heretical  shown  to  be  in  repugnance  to  these  articles; 
whether  the  reference  is  made  directly  to  the  Scripture 
as  a  standard  of  orthodoxy ;  or  to  the  Confession  of  Faith, 
which  our  Church  holds  to  be  a  summary  of  the  doctrines 
of  Scripture  ”  ( Craighead  Case ,  1824,  p.  121). 

I  object  that  the  charges  comply  with  none  of  the 

rules. 

(1.)  Charge  I.  sets  forth  “more  than  one  offence .” 
It  alleges  4  ‘  teaching  doctrines  which  conflict  irrecon¬ 
cilably  with,  and  are  contrary  to,  the  cardinal  doctrine 
taught  in  Holy  Scripture,”  etc.  (p.  5).  If  as  alleged, 
more  than  one  doctrine,  or  a  plurality  of  doctrines  is 
taught,  which  conflict  with  a  cardinal  doctrine  of  Holy 
Scripture,  there  is  a  plurality  of  offences  and  each  one 
of  these  cardinal  offences  should  be  mentioned  in  a 
separate  charge.  Charge  I.  alleges  several  offences. 

(2.)  Charge  7.  does  not  “  set  forth  the  alleged  offence .” 
It  alleges  “  teaching  doctrines  that  conflict  with,  and 
are  contrary  to,”  etc.  It  does  not  specify  what  doctrine 
it  is,  or  what  doctrines  these  are  which  “  conflict  jriec- 
oncilably  with,  and  are  contrary  to  the  cardinal  doctrine.” 
I  object  (a),  that  I  cannot  with  propriety  plead  guilty,  or 
not  guilty,  to  teaching  such  doctrines,  until  I  know  what 
doctrines  the  prosecution  have  in  mind. 

(b.)  So  far  as  I  know,  I  have  never  taught  any  doc¬ 
trines  that  conflict  with  a  cardinal  doctrine  of  Holy 
Scripture.  It  is  conceivable  that  I  may  be  mistaken,  an 


120 


that  I  might  acknowledge  my  error  if  such  doctrines  were 
specified  by  the  prosecution. 

(c.)  The  charge  is  so  general,  vague,  and  obscure,  that 
it  comprehends  any  and  every  reason  that  any  one  may 
find  for  judging  that  my  teachings  are  contrary  to  my 
ordination  vow,  “  that  the  Scriptures  of  the  Old  and  New 
Testaments  are  the  only  infallible  rule  of  faith  and 
practice”;  and  thus  enables  the  jurors  to  vote  for  my 
condemnation,  one  for  one  reason,  another  for  a  second 
reason,  a  third  for  a  third  reason,  and  so  on,  securing  by 
the  cumulation  of  votes  for  different  reasons,  a  judgment 
that  might  not  be  secured  if  each  reason  were  proved  and 
voted  upon  by  itself. 

(3.)  The  Charges  are  not  specific  and  definite.  It  is 
true  that  Charge  I.  is  so  far  definite  that  it  alleges  the 
cardinal  doctrine  that  “  the  Scriptures  of  the  Old  and  New 
Testaments  are  the  only  infallible  rule  of  faith  and  prac¬ 
tice  ”  ;  as  that  doctrine  with  which  the  doctrines  taught 
by  me  are  in  irreconcilable  conflict.  This  implies  that  I 
have  taught  some  other  doctrine  than  said  cardinal  doc¬ 
trine.  But  the  Charge  is  not  definite  and  sx>ecific  in  that 
it  fails  to  define  what  'doctrine  it  is  that  has  been  taught 
in  the  inaugural  address,  that  is  in  conflict  with,  and  con¬ 
trary  to,  said  cardinal  doctrine. 

Charge  II.  is  less  general  and  vague  than  Charge  I., 
for  whereas  Charge  I.  alleges  “ teaching  doctrines”  which 
conflict;  Charge  II.  alleges  teaching  “a  doctrine  of  the 
character,  state,  and  sanctification  of  believers  after  death” 
(p.  39),  which  irreconcilably  conflicts;  but  this  latter  is 
yet  indefinite  and  vague,  for  the  reason  that  it  does  not 
define  what  precise  doctrine  it  is,  out  of  the  many  different 
doctrines  taught  by  theologians  in  this  department  of 
Eschatology,  that  is  an  offence.  Charge  II.  while  more 
specific  than  Charge  I.  in  its  reference  to  the  doctrine 


121 


taught  by  Dr.  Briggs,  is  more  seriously  at  fault  than 
Charge  I.,  in  that  Charge  I.  mentions  the  cardinal  doctrine 
that  <c  the  Scriptures  of  the  Old  and  New  Testaments  are 
the  only  infallible  rule  of  faith  and  practice,”  but  Charge 
II.  does  not  state  what  doctrine  it  is  of  Holy  Scripture  or 
of  the  Westminster  Confession  with  which  the  doctrine 
taught  by  me  is  in  irreconcilable  conflict. 

I  would  be  entirely  willing  to  waive  this  objection  to 
the  charges  as  not  specific  and  definite,  if  this  were  the 
only  ground  of  objection  and  there  were  any  proper  way 
of  reaching  definite  charges  by  means  of  the  specifications. 
But  this  way  out  of  the  difficulty  is  closed  against  us,  as 
we  shall  soon  see.  I  am  obliged  in  the  interest  of  the 
orderly  procedure,  in  a  case  which  is  subject  to  the  review 
of  a  superior  and  of  a  supreme  court,  to  file  this  objec¬ 
tion,  even  if  it  be  less  serious  than  others  which  are  now  to 
be  adduced. 

(4.)  I  object  to  the  sufficiency  of  Charge  II.  for  the 
reason  that  it  does  not  indicate  that  the  offence  charged 
is  against  an  essential  and  necessary  article  of  the  sys¬ 
tem  of  doctrine  contained  in  the  Westminster  Confession. 
The  Law  of  the  Church  as  expressed  in  the  Book  of  Disci¬ 
pline  (§  4)  is,  that — 

“  Nothing  shall  therefore  be  the  object  of  judicial  pro¬ 
cess,  which  cannot  be  proved  to  be  contrary  to  the  Holy 
Scriptures,  or  to  the  regulations  and  practice  of  the 
Church  founded  thereon ;  nor  anything  which  does  not 
involve  those  evils  which  Discipline  is  intended  to 
prevent. 5  5 

In  the  second  term  of  subscription,  the  offence  in  doctrine 
is  limited  as  follows  :  u  Do  you  sincerely  receive  and  adopt 
the  Confession  of  Faith  of  this  Church,  as  containing  the 
system  of  doctrine  taught  in  the  Holy  Scriptures?  ”  This 
subscription  is  in  accordance  with  the  Adopting  Act  of 
1729,  which  requires  subscription  to  the  Confession  of 


122 


Faith  and  Catechisms,  “  as  being  in  all  the  essential  and 
necessary  articles,  good  forms  of  sound  words  and  systems 
of  Christian  doctrine.”  The  supreme  court  of  the  Church, 
in  the  Harker  case,  1765,  defined  this  when  it  said,  “  es¬ 
sential  to  the  system  of  doctrine  contained  in  our  West¬ 
minster  Confession  of  Faith  considered  as  a  system.” 
These  regulations  and  decisions  of  the  supreme  court  of 
the  Presbyterian  Church  require  that  nothing  shall  be  con¬ 
sidered  as  an  offence  which  is  not  contrary  to  an  essential 
and  necessary  article  of  the  Westminster  Confession. 
Charge  I.  complies  with  this  rule  in  so  far  as  it  represents 
that  the  doctrine  “  that  the  Scriptures  of  the  Old  and 
New  Testaments  are  the  only  infallible  rule  of  faith  and 
practice  ”  is  a  “  cardinal  doctrine  ”  ;  but  Charge  II.  does 
not  comply  with  the  regulations  of  the  Church,  in  that  it 
neglects  to  state  what  cardinal  doctrine,  or  what  essential 
and  necessary  article,  of  the  Westminster  Confession  of 
Faith  it  is  with  which  the  doctrine  taught  by  me  is  in  irre¬ 
concilable  conflict. 

When  these  two  charges  are  placed  side  by  side,  the  one 
exposes  the  faults  of  the  other,  and  convicts  it  of  insuffi¬ 
ciency.  Each  is  insufficient  where  the  other  is  sufficient. 
Each  is  indefinite  and  vague  where  the  other  is  more  defi¬ 
nite  and  specific.  Charge  I.  defines  the  doctrine  to  which 
the  doctrines  taught  by  me  are  opposed ;  Charge  II.  makes 
no  statement  at  all  of  any  doctrine  of  Scripture  or  Confes¬ 
sion  to  which  my  teachings  are  opposed.  Charge  II.  men¬ 
tions  a  general  group  of  doctrines  taught  by  me  which,  it 
is  claimed,  is  opposed  to  Scripture  and  Confession,  but 
Charge  I.  makes  no  definition  whatever  of  any  doctrines 
taught  by  me.  Charge  II.  alleges  one  offence  where 
Charge  I.  alleges  several.  Charge  I.  states  cardinal  doc¬ 
trine  where  Charge  II.  makes  no  mention  of  cardinal  doc¬ 
trine.  Charges  I.  and  II.  are  therefore  u  insufficient  in 
form  and  legal  effect. 5  ’ 


> 


123 


HI.— THE  SPECIFICATIONS. 

I  object  to  the  Specifications  as  irrelevant ,  “  insuffi¬ 
cient  inform  and  legal  effect for  the  following  reasons  : 
The  law  of  the  specification  as  given  in  the  Book  of  Disci¬ 
pline  is  that  “  The  specifications  shall  set  forth  the  facts 
relied  upon  to  sustain  the  charge  ”  (§  15).  The  committee 
seem  to  have  an  indefinite  conception  of  the  natuie  of 
specifications.  Some  of  the  specifications  seem  to  have 
been  framed  as  if  they  were  particular  items  of  the  gene¬ 
ral  charge,  others  as  if  they  were  particulars  of  a  still  more 
general  charge  than  that  alleged  in  Charge  I.,  and  still 
others  as  if  they  were  striving  to  state  the  facts  required  by 
the  rule  for  specifications  in  our  Book  of  Discipline.  Lest 
there  should  be  obscurity  in  the  minds  of  the  members  of 
the  court  on  this  point,  I  shall  take  the  liberty  of  citing 
from  that  ancient  and  classic  authority  in  Presbyterian 
law,  upon  which  the  American  Book  of  Discipline  is 
based.  The  Libel  in  the  Scottish  law-books  compre¬ 
hends  the  three  parts — charge,  specification,  and  judg¬ 
ment. 

“  A  Libel  is  a  Law  Syllogism,  consisting  of  the  Propo¬ 
sition  or  Relevancy,  which  is  founded  upon  the  Laws  of 
God,  or  some  Ecclesiastical  Constitution  agreeable  thereto, 
as,  whosoever  is  absent  from  publick  Divine  Service  on 
the  Lord’s  Day,  ought  to  be  censured.  The  second  part 
consists  of  the  subsumption  or  probation,  which  conde¬ 
scends  on  matter  of  Fact,  viz.,  But  such  a  person  did,  upon 
such  or  such  a  Lord’s  Day,  absent  unnecessarily  from 
the  publick  Worship  of  God.  The  third  Part  consists  of 
the  Conclusion  or  Sentence,  which  contains  a  Desiie,  that 
the  Profaner  of  the  Lord’s  Day,  according  to  the  Laws 
and  Customs  mentioned  in  the  first  part,  may  be  Cen 

sured .  ’  ’ _ W alter  Stewart,  Collections  and  Observations 

concerning  the  Worship ,  Discipline ,  and  Government  of 
the  Church  of  Scotland ,  p.  268. 


124 


The  Standard  Authority  of  the  Church  of  Scotland  at 
the  present  time  gives  a  similar  statement : 

‘  ‘  The  body  of  the  libel  consists  of  three  parts,  which 
together  should  form  a  regular  syllogism.  The  first,  or 
major  proposition,  sets  forth  the  criminality  of  the  species 
facti  charged,  and  alleges  the  guilt  of  the  accused ;  the 
second,  or  minor,  narrates  the  facts  of  the  particular 
offence ;  and  the  third,  or  conclusion,  deduces  the  justice 
of  punishing  the  individual  offender.  The  major  proposi¬ 
tion  should  be  made  as  brief  and  comprehensive  as  possi¬ 
ble.  By  overloading  it,  the  logical  structure  of  the  libel 
is  impaired,  and  unnecessary  discussions  on  relevancy  may 
be  raised.  It  may  be  difficult  to  bring  ecclesiastical  offences 
under  specific  and  generic  names  to  the  degree  in  which 
crimes  are  classified  in  the  civil  law.  But  it  is  desirable 
that  this  should  be  done  as  far  as  possible,  in  order  to 
facilitate  certainty  and  simplicity  in  the  criminal  proceed¬ 
ings  of  church  courts.  Where  it  is  necessary  to  use  cir¬ 
cumlocution  in  expressing  the  general  nature  of  the  offence, 
nothing  should  be  introduced  which  is  not  essential  to  the 
criminal  charge.  Where  it  is  impossible,  from  the  nature 
of  the  offence,  to  bring  it  under  any  generic  denomination, 
the  particular  offence  intended  to  be  charged  should  be  set 
forth  in  the  major  as  criminal  in  the  abstract,  and  should 
be  repeated  in  the  minor  as  having  been  committed  by  the 
accused  at  a  certain  time  and  place.” — Cook,  “ Styles  of 
Writs,  Forms  of  Procedure ,  and  Practice  of  the  Church 
Courts  of  Scotland ,”  pp.  119,  120. 

The  Standard  Authority  of  the  Free  Church  of  Scotland 
is  in  entire  accord  therewith : 

“  If  has  been  established  by  long  practice  that  no  judi¬ 
cial  process  of  a  serious  kind  can  be  carried  out  against  a 
minister  or  a  probationer,  except  by  the  use  of  what  is 
called  a  Libel.  This  is  a  document  consisting  of  three 
parts,  and  forming  a  regular  syllogism.  The  first,  or  major 


125 


proposition,  sets  forth  the  nature  of  the  alleged  offence, 
declares  its  contrariety  to  the  W ord  of  God  and  the  laws 
of  the  Church,  and  indicates  the  kind  of  consequences 
which  ought  to  follow  from  it.  The  second,  or  minor  prop¬ 
osition,  asserts  the  guilt  of  the  minister  or  probationer, 
and  specifies  what  are  believed  to  be  the  leading  facts 
involving  guilt,  and  particularizing  time,  place,  and  other 
circumstances.  This  proposition  may  contain  one  or  more 
counts  of  indictment.  The  third  part  connects  the  major 
and  minor  propositions  together,  and  thereby  deduces  the 
conclusion  that  the  minister  or  probationer,  as  guilty  of 
the  offence  mentioned  in  the  major  proposition,  ought  to 
be  subjected  to  the  consequences,  provided  the  minor  prop¬ 
osition  be  made  good,  either  by  confession  or  by  adequate 
evidence.  It  is  of  great  importance  that  care  be  taken  to 
frame  the  Libel  with  accuracy,  so  as  to  avoid  grounds  foi 
questioning  its  relevancy.”— Sir  Henry  Moncrieff,  “The 
Practice  of  the  Free  Church  of  Scotland ,”  pp.  118, 
119. 

The  rules  of  our  Book  of  Discipline  are  based  upon  the 
practice  of  the  Church  of  Scotland.  The  charge  corresponds 
with  the  first,  or  major  proposition  of  the  Libel ;  the  speci¬ 
fication  corresponds  with  the  second,  or  minor  proposition , 
the  sentence,  with  the  third  part,  or  conclusion.  It  is 
essential  that  the  minor  premise,  or  the  specification,  should 
be  relevant  to  the  major  proposition,  or  the  charge ;  other¬ 
wise  a  person  may  be  judged  innocent  or  guilty  of  a  charge 
with  which  the  facts  adduced  have  no  manner  of  relevancy , 
and  sentenced  to  unrighteous  suffering.  A  Presbytery  can¬ 
not  with  propriety  enter  upon  the  probation  of  a  specifica¬ 
tion,  which  specification  if  proven  would  not  substantiate 

the  charge. 

With  these  preliminary  statements  I  shall  now  proceed 
to  file  objections  to  the  relevancy  of  the  specifications. 


126 


1. — Specification  of  Charge  II. 

I  prefer  to  dispose  first  of  the  single  specification  under 
Charge  II.  Charge  II.  is  followed  by  a  heading  entitled 
“  specification  ” ;  but,  in  fact,  there  is  no  specification  what¬ 
ever,  but  only  the  general  statement :  ‘  4  In  the  said  inaugu¬ 
ral  address,  delivered,  published,  extensively  circulated 
and  republished  as  above  described,  Dr.  Briggs  teaches  as 
follows”  (p.  39).  Turning  to  Charge  I.  we  find  that  a 
statement  corresxionding  to  this  is  made  as  the  second  sec¬ 
tion  of  the  charge.  Place  the  two  side  by  side  and  this 
will  be  evident  at  a  glance : 

Charge  I. 

‘  ‘  These  hurtful  errors,  striking  at 
the  vitals  of  religion,  and  contrary  to 
the  regulations  and  practice  of  the 
Presbyterian  Church,  were  promul¬ 
gated  in  an  inaugural  address  which 
Dr.  Briggs  delivered  at  the  Union 
Theological  Seminary  in  the  city  of 
New  York,  Jan.  20,  1891,  on  the  oc¬ 
casion  of  his  induction  into  the  Ed¬ 
ward  Robinson  Chair  of  Biblical  The¬ 
ology,  which  address  has,  with  Dr. 

Briggs’  approval,  been  published  and 
extensively  circulated,  and  repub¬ 
lished  in  a  second  edition  with  a  pref¬ 
ace  and  an  appendix  ”(p.  5). 

If  such  a  statement  belong  to  Charge  I.,  it  does  not 
belong  to  the  specification  of  Charge  II.  The  only  item 
under  the  so-called  specification  of  Charge  II.,  not  cor¬ 
responding  to  the  statement  made  under  Charge  I.,  is  the 
clause  “teaches  as  follows.”  In  all  the  previous  specifi¬ 
cations,  the  references  under  the  head  of  4  4  Inaugural  Ad¬ 
dress  ’  ’  are  a  part  of  the  proof ;  here,  however,  they  are 
made  a  part  of  the  specification.  This  so-called  specifica¬ 
tion  is  a  heaping  up  of  extracts  from  six  pages  of  the 
Inaugural  Address.  I  shall  admit  the  correctness  of  the 


Specification  of  Charge  II. 

“In  the  said  inaugural  address,  de¬ 
livered,  published,  extensively  circu¬ 
lated  and  republished  as  above  de¬ 
scribed,  Dr.  Briggs  teaches  as  fol¬ 
lows  ”  (p.  39). 


127 


citations.  If  therefore  no  objection  is  taken  to  their  pro¬ 
priety  in  the  specification,  or  to  their  relevancy  under  the 
charge,  the  defendant  is  placed  in  a  disadvantageous  posi¬ 
tion  as  to  the  verdict  which  might  be  rendered  against  him 
on  the  basis  of  any  one  of  the  thirty-four  verses  of  Scripture 
cited,  or  any  clause  of  the  several  extracts  from  the  Stand¬ 
ards. 

There  is  nothing  whatever  in  the  specification.  It 
makes  no  specification  of  fact  such  as  could  be  admitted 
or  refuted.  If  the  specification  had  pointed  to  any  erro¬ 
neous  doctrine  taught  by  me ;  if  I  had  been  chaiged  with 
teaching  second  probation  or  any  probation  whatever  after 
death,  I  might  have  pointed  to  several  of  my  writings  in 
which  this  doctrine  is  distinctly  disclaimed.  If  the  doc¬ 
trine  of  purgatory  had  been  imputed,  or  regeneration  after 
death,  or  transition  after  death  from  the  state  of  the  con¬ 
demned  to  the  state  of  the  justified,  any  and.  all  of  these 
could  have  been  disproved  from  my  writings.  If  any 
insinuation  had  been  made  that  I  had  taught  that  the 
redeemed  enter  the  Middle  State  guilty  and  sinful,  this 
could  easily  have  been  refuted.  But  no  such  doctrines 
are  specified.  No  specific  doctrine  whatever  is  mentioned. 
There  is  nothing  in  the  specification  that  can  be  tested  by 
the  defendant  or  challenged  by  the  Presbytery. 

There  was  no  sufficient  reason  for  indefiniteness  and 
vagueness  here.  The  doctrine  taught  in  the  Inaugural 
Address  is  Progressive  Sanctification  after  Death.  The 
doctrine  alleged  to  be  in  conflict  with  it  is  Immediate 
Sanctification  at  Death. 

It  will  be  necessary  for  the  prosecution  to  prove  (1)  that 
immediate  sanctification  at  death  is  taught  in  the  Script¬ 
ures  and  the  Standards ;  (2)  that  it  is  a  cardinal  doctrine  oi 
the  Westminster  Confession ;  and  (3)  that  the  two  doc¬ 
trines  are  in  irreconcilable  conflict  with  each  other,  ere  the 
Presbytery  would  be  justified  in  condemning  me.  le 


128 


charge  and  so-called  specification  do  not  make  a  definite 
issue.  They  put  the  charge  and  specification  in  such  an 
obscure,  indefinite  and  empty  form  that  the  defendant  is 
placed  at  a  serious  disadvantage  in  pleading,  and  the  jurors 
may  be  justified  in  voting  to  condemn,  on  any  plausible 
ground  that  might  seem  to  them  sufficient,  to  prove  that 
in  any  way  the  views  of  the  Future  State  expressed  in  the 
Inaugural  Address  are  in  conflict  with  their  own  views  of 
Scripture  and  Confession. 

2. — Specification  5  of  Chaege  I. 

Having  disposed  of  the  specification  under  Charge  II., 
we  may  now  devote  our  attention  to  the  seven  specifica¬ 
tions  of  Charge  I.  These  specifications  may  be  grouped 
under  several  heads.  I  shall  review  them  in  an  order 
more  suitable  to  my  purpose  than  that  of  the  Report  itself. 
I  shall  first  consider  specification  5  ;  (2)  specifications  1  and 
6 ;  (3)  specifications  2,  3  and  4 ;  (4)  specification  7.  The 
first  of  the  specifications  to  which  I  object  is  specification  5  : 

“Dr.  Briggs  makes  statements  in  regard  to  the  Holy 
Scriptures  which  cannot  be  reconciled  with  the  doctrine 
of  the  true  and  full  inspiration  of  those  Scriptures  as  the 
Word  of  God  written  ”  (p.  21). 

It  should  now  be  kept  distinctly  in  mind  that  a  specifi¬ 
cation  must  confine  itself  to  setting  forth  “  the  facts  relied 
upon  to  sustain  the  charge  ”  (§  15).  This  specification 
does  not  state  a  fact,  but  makes  an  allegation  which  is  of 
the  nature  of  a  charge.  This  will  be  clear  if  one  compares 
this  specification  with  Charges  I.  and  II.  Charge  I. 
alleges  that  Dr.  Briggs  teaches  “  doctrines  which  conflict.  ” 
Charge  II.  alleges  that  he  teaches  a  doctrine  of  “the  char¬ 
acter,  state,  and  sanctification  of  believers  after  death” 
which  conflicts.  This  specification  alleges  that  he  makes 

statements  in  regard  to  the  Holy  Scriptures  which  can¬ 
not  be  reconciled  with,”  etc.  Specification  5  is  therefore 


129 


really  as  much  of  a  charge  as  Charges  I.  and  II.,  and  has 
been  improperly  brought  under  Charge  I.  But  even  as  a 
charge,  it  is  no  true  charge.  It  shares  the  faults  of  the 
other  charges.  This  specification  uses  the  plural  “  state¬ 
ments”  involving  several  offences,  and  it  does  not  specify 
what  one  of  the  many  statements  in  regard  to  the  Holy 
Scripture  it  is  designed  to  allege  against  me.  Placing  this 
specification  side  by  side  with  Charge  I.,  it  is  clear  that 
this  specification  cannot  be  brought  under  Charge  I.,  for  it 
deals  with  a  different  doctrine.  In  Charge  I.  the  cardinal 
doctrine  that  “the  Scriptures  of  the  Old  and  New  Testa¬ 
ments  are  the  only  infallible  rule  of  faith  and  practice,  ’  ’ 
the  first  of  the  terms  of  subscription,  is  the  doctrine 
against  which  it  is  alleged  that  I  offend.  In  this  specifica¬ 
tion,  it  is  “the  true  and  full  inspiration  of  Holy  Scripture 
as  the  Word  of  God  written  ”  (Confession  of  Faith,  I.,  2), 
against  which  offence  is  alleged.  These  two  doctrines  may 
be  brought  under  the  general  doctrine  of  Holy  Scripture ; 
but  the  one  of  these  doctrines  cannot  be  brought  under  the 
other.  Therefore  Specification  5  is  irrelevant  to  Charge  I. 

When  one  compares  this  Report,  with  its  charges  and 
specifications,  with  the  Report  of  the  committee  to  exam¬ 
ine  the  Inaugural  Address,  made  to  Presbytery  in  May 
last,  and  recognizes  that  the  chairman  and  the  majority  of 
both  committees  are  the  same,  one  is  entitled  to  ask  how 
they  can  reconcile  the  two  Reports.  What  they  then,  in 
their  first  Report,  made  their  second  charge,  and  what 
they  then  argued  as  their  principal  offence,  namely,  the 
offence  against  the  inerrancy  of  the  original  autographs  of 
Scripture,  has  been  reduced  in  this  Report  to  a  specifica¬ 
tion  under  Charge  I.  Here  was  a  definite,  a  distinct  dif¬ 
ference  of  doctrine  as  to  the  inerrancy  of  Scripture,  which 
should  have  been  formulated  into  a  definite  charge  with 
specifications,  so  that  the  Presbytery  might  vote  on  the 
question:  Hoes  the  Westminster  Confession  teach  the 


130 


inerrancy  of  the  original  autographs  of  Holy  Scripture? 
The  charge  definitely  made  and  argued  last  May  has  been 
depreciated  in  this  Report.  It  has  been  subordinated  as  a 
specification  under  a  different  charge.  It  has  been  couched 
in  such  general,  obscure,  and  indefinite  language  as  not 
to  enable  a  juror  to  vote  on  the  direct  question  of  the 
inerrancy  of  the  original  autographs  of  Scripture ;  but  to 
induce  him  to  vote  the  defendant  guilty  of  a  general 
charge  for  any  private  reasons  of  objection  against 
his  doctrine  of  the  Bible,  whatever  they  may  be. 

Specification  5  ought  to  be  restored  to  its  original  posi¬ 
tion  as  given  in  the  Report  of  the  committee  to  the  Pres¬ 
bytery  in  May  last,  and  made  as  a  distinct  charge,  and  it 
should  state  definitely  the  issue  involved,  namely,  what 
doctrine  is  it  that  Dr.  Briggs  teaches  that  is  irreconcilable 
with  the  cardinal  doctrine  of  Scripture  and  Confession,  as 
to  the  inerrancy  of  Holy  Scripture?  Is  it  a  cardinal  doc¬ 
trine  of  Holy  Scripture  and  Confession  that  the  original 
autographs  of  Holy  Scripture  were  inerrant?  If  such  a 
definite  charge  had  been  made,  then  the  Presbytery  could 
test  it  intelligently  and  decide  with  precision. 

3. — Specifications  1  and  6  of  Charge  I. 

Specifications  1  and  6  may  be  considered  together, 
because  they  are  the  only  two  of  the  eight  specifications 
that  can  be  recognized  as  in  any  sense  true  and  real,  as 
alleging  actual  facts. 

A. — Specification  1. 

It  is  a  fact  that  the  Inaugural  Address  declares  that 
there  are  ‘  ‘  historically  three  great  fountains  of  divine 
authority,  the  Bible,  the  Church,  and  the  Reason,”  but 
Specification  1  is  illegal  in  form,  in  that  it  introduces  an 
inference  from  the  fact,  by  the  prosecution,  that  cannot  be 
recognized  as  either  true  or  valid.  It  is  not  altogether 


131 


clear  what  the  prosecution  mean  to  infer  by  their  word 

sufficient”  If  they  mean  to  intimate  that  the  Inaugu¬ 
ral  teaches  that  the  Church  and  the  Reason  are  each 
alike  sufficient  fountains  of  divine  authority,  and  that  the 
Church  and  the  Reason  are  no  less  “  sufficient  to  give  that 
knowledge  of  God  and  His  will,  which  is  necessary  unto 
salvation,”  than  Holy  Scripture;  they  infer  what  they 
have  no  right  to  infer  from  anything  taught  in  the  Inaugu¬ 
ral  Address.  It  is  unlawful  to  put  in  specifications  infer¬ 
ences  of  the  prosecution  not  recognized  by  the  accused,  as 
if  they  were  facts.  For  the  supreme  court  of  the  Church 
has  decided  in  the  Craighead  case : 

‘ £  That  a  man  cannot  fairly  be  convicted  of  heresy ,  for 
using  expressions  that  may  be  so  interpreted  as  to  involve 
heretical  doctrines,  if  they  may  also  admit  of  a  more  favor¬ 
able  construction :  Because,  no  one  can  tell  in  what  sense 
an  ambiguous  expression  is  used,  but  the  speaker  or 
writer,  and  he  has  a  right  to  explain  himself ;  and  in  such 
cases,  candor  requires  that  a  court  should  favor  the 
accused,  by  putting  on  his  words  the  more  favorable,  rather 
than  the  less  favorable  construction.  Another  principle 
is,  that  no  man  can  rightly  be  convicted  of  heresy  by  infer¬ 
ence  or  implication ;  that  is,  we  must  not  charge  an 
accused  person  with  holding  those  consequences  which  may 
legitimately  flow  from  his  assertions.  Many  men  are 
grossly  inconsistent  with  themselves;  and  while  it  is 
right,  in  argument,  to  overthrow  false  opinions,  by  tracing 
them  in  their  connections  and  consequences,  it  is  not  right 
to  charge  any  man  with  an  opinion  which  he  disavows.” — 
Craighead  Case  :  4  ‘  Minutes  of  the  General  Assembly ,  ’  ’ 
1824,  p.  122. 

Specification  1,  though  it  cites  a  fact,  when  the  invalid 
inference  is  stricken  out,  is  yet  irrelevant ;  for  the  specifi¬ 
cation  does  not  attempt  to  prove  that  this  fact  conflicts 
with,  and  is  contrary  to,  the  cardinal  doctrine  that  ‘  ‘  the 


132 


Scriptures  of  the  Old  and  Kew  Testaments  are  the  only 
infallible  rule  of  faith  and  practice.”  Furthermore  there 
is  no  process  of  logic  by  which  this  specification  can  be 
brought  under  the  charge.  The  Reason  is  a  44  great  foun¬ 
tain  of  divine  authority,  ’ 5  and  yet  not  an  4  4  infallible  rule 
of  faith  and  practice.”  The  Church  is  a  u  great  fountain 
of  divine  authority,”  and  yet  not  an  44  infallible  rule  of 
faith  and  practice.”  The  Bible  is  a  4 4  great  fountain  of 
divine  authority, 5  ’  and  it  is  also  4  4  the  only  infallible  rule 
of  faith  and  practice.”  Here  are  two  different  statements 
of  truths  that  may  be  embraced  under  a  more  general 
truth,  but  to  affirm  the  one,  as  to  Bible,  Church,  and 
Reason  that  4  4  they  are  great  fountains  of  divine  author¬ 
ity,  5  ?  is  not  to  deny  that  the  Bible  is  the  only  one  of  which 
the  other  can  be  affirmed,  namely,  that  4 1  the  Scriptures 
are  the  only  infallible  rule  of  faith  and  practice.”  When 
God  speaks  through  the  conscience,  He  speaks  with  divine 
authority  and  the  conscience  becomes  a  4 4  great  fountain  of 
divine  authority  ’  ’ ;  but  the  conscience  does  not  become 
thereby  an  “infallible  rule  of  faith  and  practice.”  God 
speaks  through  the  holy  sacrament  with  divine  authority, 
and  the  sacrament  of  the  Church  is  then  a  4  4  great  fountain 
of  divine  authority  5  5 ;  but  it  does  not  become  thereby  an 
“  infallible  rule  of  faith  and  practice.”  I  affirm  that  I 
have  never  anywhere,  or  at  any  time,  made  any  statements 
or  taught  any  doctrines  that  in  the  slightest  degree  impair 
what  I  ever  have  regarded  as  a  cardinal  doctrine,  that  4  4  the 
Holy  Scriptures  are  the  only  infallible  rule  of  faith  and 
practice.  ’ 5 

B, — Specification  6. 

It  is  a  fact  that  I  have  taught  and  most  firmly  hold  and 
assert  4  4  that  Moses  is  not  the  author  of  the  Pentateuch, 
and  that  Isaiah  is  not  the  author  of  half  of  the  book  which 
bears  his  name,”  but  Specification  6  does  not  indicate  by 
what  method  of  reasoning  it  brings  this  fact  under  the 


133 


charge.  It  is  irrelevant  to  the  charge.  If  it  be  a  valid 
offence  it  ought  to  have  been  made  the  ground  of  a  distinct 
charge,  and  it  ought  to  have  been  definitely  stated  vhat 
relation  Moses  has  to  the  Pentateuch,  and  Isaiah  to  the 
book  that  bears  his  name,  according  to  the  Confession,  and 
in  what  way  the  doctrine  stated  by  me  conflicts  therewith, 
or  with  Holy  Scripture.  Though  Moses  be  not  the  author 
of  the  Pentateuch,  yet  Mosaic  history,  Mosaic  institutions, 
and  Mosaic  legislation  lie  at  the  base  of  all  the  oiiginal 
documents ;  and  the  name  of  Moses  pervades  the  Penta¬ 
teuch  as  a  sweet  fragrance,  and  binds  the  whole  together 
with  irresistible  attraction  into  an  organism  of  divine  law. 
Even  though  Moses  be  not  the  author  of  the  Pentateuch, 
yet  the  Pentateuch  may  be,  as  I  firmly  believe,  one  of  the 
books  of  Holy  Scripture,  having  divine  authority ;  and 
the  Pentateuch  is,  as  I  have  always  taught,  one  of  those 
Holy  Scriptures  which  together  constitute  ‘  ‘  the  only  infal¬ 
lible  rule  of  faith  and  practice.” 

Even  though  i  ‘  Isaiah  did  not  write  half  the  book  which 
bears  his  name,”  yet  I  firmly  believe  that  holy  prophets  no 
less  inspired  than  Isaiah,  wrote  the  greater  half  of  the 
book  under  the  guidance  of  the  divine  Spirit,  so  that  the 
book  with  different  authors  is  as  truly  one  of  the  books  of 
Holy  Scripture,  u  the  only  infallible  rule  of  faith  and  prac¬ 
tice,”  as  if  it  were  written  by  Isaiah  alone.  The  fact 
adduced  has  no  manner  of  relevancy  to  the  charge. 

If  the  Presbytery  should  decide  that  these  two  specifica¬ 
tions,  1  and  6,  are  relevant  to  the  Charge,  they  would  put 
the  accused  in  a  false  position  and  expose  him  to  the  peril 
of  a  condemnation  on  the  basis  of  these  two  facts,  which, 
after  rejecting  the  illegal  inferences,  he  must  acknowledge 
as  true,  but  which  he  claims  need  explanation,  and  are 
entirely  irrelevant  to  the  Charge.  If  it  be  true  that  the 
Scriptures  and  the  Confession  teach  that  Moses  wrote  the 
Pentateuch,  and  that  Isaiah  wrote  the  whole  of  the  book 


134 


which  bears  his  name,  these  doctrines  should  be  affirmed 
in  charges,  as  cardinal  doctrines,  and  the  doctrines  taught 
by  me  should  be  placed  in  such  a  sufficient  legal  form,  that 
the  jurors  might  vote  clearly  and  directly  upon  them. 

It  is  conceivable  that  I  might  be  proven  guilty  of  teach¬ 
ing  doctrines  contrary  to  the  Confession  in  regard  to  both 
Moses  and  Isaiah,  and  the  Church  and  the  Reason  as 
fountains  of  divine  authority;  but  it  would  still  remain 
unproven  that  such  teaching  was  opposed  to  cardinal 
doctrines  of  the  Confession.  Much  less  would  it  be  proven 
that  these  doctrines  conflict  irreconcilably  with  the  cardinal 
doctrine  “that  the  Scriptures  of  the  Old  and  New  Testa¬ 
ments  are  the  only  infallible  rule  of  faith  and  practice.” 

4. — Specifications  2,  3  and  4  of  Charge  I. 

Specifications  2,  3  and  4  may  be  grouped,  because  the 
same  objections  hold  against  the  three.  They  all  make 
false  inferences  and  erroneous  statements.  It  might  be 
proper  in  a  civil  court  to  challenge  the  proof  of  these  so- 
called  specifications  of  fact ;  but  in  the  ecclesiastical  court, 
according  to  the  decision  already  quoted  in  the  Craighead 
case,  inferences  and  statements,  not  recognized  by  the 
accused,  are  not  valid  in  the  specification  of  offences.  And 
it  is  certainly  in  the  interest  of  truth  and  the  saving  of 
valuable  time,  that  exception  should  at  once  be  taken  to 
them  as  irrelevant  and  invalid  specifications  under  the 
Charge. 

A. — Specifications  2  and  3. 

Specification  2  alleges  that : 

“Dr.  Briggsaffirms  that,  in  the  case  of  some,  the  Holy 
Scriptures  are  not  sufficient  to  give  that  knowledge  of  God 
and  His  will,  which  is  necessary  unto  salvation,  even 
though  they  strive  never  so  hard ;  and  that  such  persons, 
setting  aside  the  supreme  authority  of  the  word  of  God, 


135 


can  obtain  that  saving  knowledge  of  Him  through  the 
Church”  (p.  12). 

Specification  3  alleges  that : 

“  Dr.  Briggs  affirms  that  some  (such  as  James  Martineau, 
who  denies  the  doctrines  of  the  Holy  Trinity,  the  Incarna¬ 
tion,  the  Atonement,  the  Resurrection  of  the  Body,  the 
personality  of  the  Holy  Ghost,  who  rejects  the  miracles  of 
the  Bible  and  denies  the  truth  of  the  Gospel  narratives,  as 
well  as  most  of  the  theology  of  the  Epistles),  to  whom  the 
Holy  Scripture  is  not  sufficient  to  give  that  knowledge  of 
God,  and  of  His  Will,  which  is  necessary  unto  salvation, 
may  turn  from  the  Supreme  Authority  of  the  Word  of 
God  and  find  that  knowledge  of  Him  through  the  Reason 
(p.  15). 

These  specifications,  as  they  now  stand,  are  false  to 
truth  and  to  fact.  No  such  facts  are  recorded  in  the 
Inaugural  Address.  If,  however,  they  were  true,  and  it 
could  be  proven,  or  I  should  admit,  that  I  had  affirmed 
that  the  Scriptures  “  are  not  sufficient  to  give  that  knowl¬ 
edge  of  God  and  His  will,  which  is  necessary  unto 
salvation,”  even  then,  in  that  case,  the  specifications  would 
be  irrelevant  to  the  charge,  for  the  charge  alleges  that  I 
teach  doctrines  that  irreconcilably  conflict  with  the  cardinal 
doctrine  that  “the  Holy  Scriptures  of  the  Old  and  New 
Testaments  are  the  only  infallible  rule  of  faith  and  prac¬ 
tice.”  But  these  specifications  allege  a  very  different  thing 
which  cannot  be  brought  under  that  cardinal  doctrine, 
namely,  that  I  affirm  that  the  Scriptures  ‘  ‘  are  not  sufficient 
to  give  that  knowledge  necessary  unto  salvation.”  The 
sufficiency  of  Holy  Scripture  is  one  doctrine,  its  inf  alli- 
bility  another  doctrine,  both  true  and  cardinal  doctrines  of 
Holy  Scripture,  taught  in  the  Westminster  Confession; 
but  two  different  and  distinct  doctrines ;  therefore  Specifi¬ 
cations  2  and  3  are  irrelevant  to  the  charge. 


136 


Furthermore  the  specifications  are  invalid  statements  of 
fact.  For  nowhere  in  the  Inaugural  Address,  or  in  any 
other  writing  that  I  have  written,  is  it  affirmed  that  “in 
the  case  of  some,  the  Holy  Scriptures  are  not  sufficient  to 
give  that  knowledge  of  God  and  His  Will,  which  is 
necessary  unto  salvation  ”  ;  or  “  that  some,  to  whom  the 
Holy  Scripture  is  not  sufficient  to  give  that  knowledge  of 
God  and  of  His  Will,  which  is  necessary  to  salvation,  may 
turn  from  the  Supreme  Authority  of  the  Word  of  God  and 
find  that  knowledge  of  Him  through  the  Reason.”  I  have 
nowhere  denied  the  sufficiency  of  Holy  Scripture.  I  have 
ever  maintained  that  it  is  sufficient  for  the  salvation  of  all 
men,  of  the  entire  human  race.  The  redemption  through 
Jesus  Christ  is  sufficient  for  all  mankind.  The  Word  of 
God  which  proclaims  that  redemption  to  the  world  in  the 
Gospel  of  the  grace  of  God,  is  sufficient  for  every  one  and 
for  all  the  world.  But  the  sufficiency  of  Holy  Scripture 
is  one  thing,  the  efficacy  of  Holy  Scripture  is  another 
and  a  different  thing.  The  Westminster  Confession 
teaches  that  “our  full  persausion  and  assurance  of  the 
infallible  truth,  and  divine  authority  thereof  (of  Holy 
Scripture),  is  from  the  inward  work  of  the  Holy  Spirit, 
bearing  witness  by  and  with  the  word  in  our  hearts”  (I. 
5).  The  Larger  Catechism  represents  that :  “the  Spirit  of 
God  maketh  the  reading,  but  especially  the  preaching  of 
the  Word,  an  effectual  means  of  enlightening,  convincing, 
and  humbling  sinners,  of  driving  them  out  of  themselves, 
and  drawing  them  unto  Christ ;  of  conforming  them  to  His 
image  and  subduing  them  to  His  will ;  of  strengthening 
them  against  temptations  and  corruptions ;  of  building 
them  up  in  grace  and  establishing  their  hearts  in  holiness 
and  comfort  through  faith  unto  salvation  ”  (Quest.  155). 

It  is  evidently  the  teaching  of  our  standards  that  while 
the  Scriptures  are  always  sufficient,  they  are  not  always 
efficacious  to  those  who  use  them ;  but  that  their  efficacy 


137 


depends  upon  the  presence  and  power  of  the  Divine  Spirit 
in  and  with  the  Scriptures  in  their  use.  I  affirm  both  the 
sufficiency  of  the  Scriptures,  and  the  efficacy  of  the  Script¬ 
ures,  when  the  Divine  Spirit  accompanies  them ;  but  this 
is  not  to  affirm  that  in  fact  all  those  who  use  the  Scriptures 
as  a  means  of  approach  to  God,  do  certainly  find  them 
efficient  in  their  case,  or  that  the  Divine  Spirit  may  not 
work  effectually  upon  some  men  through  the  Church  or  the 
Reason. 

It  is  a  cardinal  doctrine  of  the  Reformed  Churches  that 
the  Divine  Spirit  is  free  and  is  not  confined  to  any  one  or 
to  all  of  the  means  of  grace.  This  doctrine  finds  expression 
in  the  words  of  our  Confession,  where  it  says  “the  Spirit 
who  worketh  when,  and  where  and  how  He  pleasetli  ” 
(X.  3). 

1  have  taken  the  late  Cardinal  Newman  at  his  word, 
when  he  said  he  did  not  find  certainty  of  divine  authority 
through  the  Scriptures,  but  did  find  certainty  of  divine 
authority  through  the  Church.  I  have  not  affirmed  that 
Newman  found  divine  certainty  without  the  influence  of 
the  divine  Spirit.  I  have  said  that  he  found  divine  cer¬ 
tainty  by  the  influence  of  the  divine  Spirit  working  through 
Church  and  Sacrament,  which  are  means  of  grace  as  truly 
as  Holy  Scripture.  I  have  not  said  that  Newman  did  not 
find  the  Scripture  sufficient  for  salvation.  Newman  him¬ 
self  never  said  that.  He  was  always  devout  in  his  use  of 
Holy  Scripture.  I  said  that  he  did  not  find  certitude  in 
the  Scripture,  but  that  in  his  case  the  divine  Spirit  gave 
that  certitude  through  the  Church  as  a  means  of  grace. 

So  also  in  the  case  of  Martineau.  I  did  not  affirm  that 
he  found  the  Scriptures  insufficient  for  his  salvation,  but  I 
said  that  he  did  not  gain  certitude  either  through  the 
Scriptures  or  the  Church;  but  that  he  claimed,  and  I 
recognized  his  claim,  that  he  found  this  certitude ,  this 
certainty  of  divine  authority,  in  the  forms  of  the  Reason, 


138 


using  Reason  as  Martineau  and  others  have  commonly 
used  it,  to  include  the  conscience  and  the  religious  feeling. 

It  is  in  accordance  with  the  common  doctrine  of  the 
Reformed  Churches,  that  the  Spirit  of  God  may  work 
directly  upon  the  souls  of  men  apart  from  the  Bible, 
Church,  and  Sacraments.  It  is  a  simple  question  of  fact 
whether  the  divine  Spirit  has  not  thus  worked  in  the  case 
of  Martineau.  My  judgment  may  be  challenged  for  accept¬ 
ing  Martineau’s  own  testimony  in  the  case;  but  my 
orthodoxy  cannot  be  rightly  challenged  for  recognizing 
Martineau  as  a  case,  in  the  category  of  cases,  recognized 
by  our  Confession,  of  those  directly  approached  by  the 
Spirit  “  who  worketh  when,  and  where,  and  how  he  pleas- 
eth”  (X.  3). 

The  prosecution,  with  great  impropriety,  have  inserted 
in  the  midst  of  the  fact  so  wrongly  imputed  to  me,  a 
summary  of  their  own  composition,  setting  forth  the  errors 
of  James  Martineau.  This  is  entirely  irrelevant.  I  have 
nowhere  affirmed  the  orthodoxy  of  Martineau.  On  the 
other  hand,  I  selected  him  as  a  man  entirely  outside  of  the 
camps  of  evangelicals  and  churchmen,  to  represent  a  class 
of  men  who  found  divine  certainty  in  the  Reason.  The 
prosecution  may  find  it  difficult  to  believe  that  God  would 
grant  certitude  to  such  a  man  through  the  Reason ;  but 
they  do  not,  and  they  cannot,  adduce  from  Holy  Scripture 
or  Confession  any  evidence  to  show  that  God  may  not  in 
fact  grant  even  such  a  man  as  Martineau  access  to  Him 
through  the  Reason,  notwithstanding  all  his  heterodoxy 
and  neglect  of  the  means  of  grace  so  necessary  to  other 
men.  If  I  have  in  the  cases  of  Newman  and  Martineau 
taught  erroneous  doctrine  when  I  have  said  that  the  one 
found  divine  certainty  in  the  Church  and  the  other  in  the 
Reason,  when  they  could  not  find  that  certainty  in  the 
Bible;  then  that  passage  of  the  Confession  should  be 
pointed  out  which  teaches  as  a  cardinal  doctrine,  that  the 


139 


Bible  is  the  only  means  used  by  the  divine  Spirit  to  grant 
certitude ,  certainty ,  assurance  of  grace  and  salvation  ; 
and  that  cardinal  doctrine,  if  it  can  be  found,  should  be 
put  in  a  definite  charge,  sufficient  in  form  and  legal 

effect. 

B. — Specification  4. 

Specification  4  also  comes  under  this  head.  It  alleges 
that  “  Dr.  Briggs  asserts  that  the  temperaments  and  envi¬ 
ronments  of  men  determine  which  of  the  three  ways  of 
access  to  God  they  may  pursue  ”  (p.  19).  This  is  also  a 
false  inference.  The  specification  makes  two  important 
changes  in  my  doctrinal  statement.  The  Inaugural  says  : 
“  Men  are  influenced  by  their  temperaments  and  environ¬ 
ments.”  The  specification  changes  the  passive  construc¬ 
tion  into  the  active  and  thus  gives  greater  emphasis  to  the 
verb.  It  also  uses  instead  of  the  verb  “ influence,”  the 
much  stronger  word  £  £  determine. 5  ’  I  have  never  said  that 
<  ‘  the  temperaments  and  environments  of  men  determine 
which  of  the  three  ways  of  access  to  God  they  may  pur¬ 
sue.”  I  used  the  expression  ££  influenced  byfl  advisedly ; 
because  it  does  not  exclude  other  influences  than  these. 
Indeed  it  would  be  quite  proper,  so  far  as  the  language  of 
the  Inaugural  is  concerned,  if  one  should  say,  Men  aie 
influenced  by  their  temperaments  and  environments  which 
of  the  three  ways  of  access  to  God  they  may  pursue,  but 
it  is  the  Spirit  of  God  who  alone  determines  in  which,  of 
the  three  ways  they  shall  find  the  divine  certainty  of  which 
they  are  in  quest. 

But  even  if  the  specification  were  recognized  as  valid  and 
true,  it  is  irrelevant  to  the  charge ;  for  it  does  not  appear 
from  anything  in  the  specification  itself  that  the  doctrine 
of  the  specification  is  irreconcilably  in  conflict  with  the 
cardinal  doctrine  that  ‘ £  the  Holy  Scriptures  are  the  only 
infallible  rule  of  faith  and  practice.” 


140 


5. — Specification  7  of  Chaege  I. 

Specification  7  alleges  that  “  Dr.  Briggs  teaches  that 
predictive  prophecy  has  been  reversed  by  history,  and 
that  much  of  it  has  not  and  never  can  be  fulfilled  ’  ’ 
(p.  35). 

This  specification  makes  invalid  inferences  and  state¬ 
ments.  The  specification  makes  two  serious  changes  in 
the  sentence  of  the  Inaugural.  (1)  It  omits  altogether  the 
qualifying  clause,  “  if  we  insist  upon  the  fulfilment  of  the 
details  of  the  predictive  prophecy  of  the  Old  Testament,  ’  ’ 
and  (2)  it  substitutes  for  “  many  of  these  predictions,’ ’ 
the  careful  statement  of  the  Inaugural  Address,  “predic¬ 
tive  prophecy,”  a  general  and  comprehensive  term;  and 
thus  alleges  that  the  address  teaches  that  “predictive 
prophecy  has  been  reversed  by  history.”  This  allegation 
is  entirely  without  justification  from  anything  taught  in 
the  Inaugural  Address,  or  any  other  of  my  writings.  I 
have  ever  taught  that  the  predictive  prophecy  of  the  Old 
Testament  has  been  fulfilled  in  history,  or  will  yet  be  ful¬ 
filled  in  history.  I  have  shown  in  my  book,  entitled 
“Messianic  Prophecy,”  that  “the  details  of  predictive 
prophecy  ”  belong  to  the  symbolical  and  typical  form,  and 
were  never  designed  to  be  fulfilled.  I  have  shown  the  his¬ 
torical  development  of  the  entire  series  of  Messianic  pre¬ 
dictions  of  the  Old  Testament,  and  pointed  them  towards 
the  fulfilment  in  Jesus  Christ  our  Saviour;  and  have  urged 
that  either  they  have  been  fulfilled  at  His  first  advent, 
are  being  fulfilled  in  His  reign  over  His  Church,  or  will  be 
fulfilled  at  His  second  advent. 

The  specifications  have  now  been  tested  as  to  their  rele¬ 
vancy,  and  have  all  of  them  been  found  to  be  irrelevant. 
Only  two  of  the  eight  specifications  state  what  can  be 
recognized  as  facts,  and  these  two  can,  by  no  process  of 
logic,  be  brought  under  the  Charge.  If  there  be  sufficiency 
in  form  or  in  legal  effect,  in  any  of  the  charges  and  speci- 


141 


fixations,  the  respondent  fails  to  see  it.  He  submits  liis 
objections  to  the  Presbytery,  in  the  confidence  that  they 
will  receive  due  consideration,  and  that  the  Presbytery 
will  take  proper  action  with  regard  to  them. 

IV.— THE  PROOFS. 

The  objections  might  be  brought  to  an  end  here,  were  it 
not  important  to  save  the  valuable  time  of  the  Presbytery, 
by  calling  attention  to  all  such  faults  in  connection  with 
the  charges  and  specifications  as  should  be  considered. 

The  citations  from  the  Inaugural,  from  Holy  Scripture, 
and  from  the  Westminster  Confession  and  Catechisms  have 
the  same  fault  that  we  have  found  in  the  charges  and 
specifications.  There  is  a  general  vagueness  and  indefinite  - 
ness. 

I  object  (1)  that  it  is  not  in  good  form  to  cite  any  more 
from  the  Inaugural  Address  than  is  sufficient  for  the 
proof  of  the  specification  under  which  the  citation  is 
made.  Under  the  so-called  specification  of  Charge  II.  a 
long  citation  is  made  from  three  pages  of  the  Inaugural 
Address,  and  a  second  long  citation  from  two  pages  of  the 
Appendix  of  said  Address  is  given  to  prove  one  knows  not 
what  fact  or  charge. 

(2.)  The  citations  from  the  Westminster  Confession  are 
commonly  of  entire  sections.  The  committee  do  not  claim 
in  their  charges  and  specifications,  that  there  is  offence 
against  the  entire  doctrine  of  these  sections  of  the  Con¬ 
fession.  They  should  be  required  therefore  to  limit  their 
citations  to  those  portions  of  these  sections  that  furnish 
probable  proof  of  the  position  taken  by  them,  e.  g .,  what 
possible  advantage  is  gained  from  the  citation  of  all  the 
books  of  the  Bible  under  two  different  specifications,  when 
no  charge  or  specification  is  made,  that  the  Inaugural 
Address  questions  any  one  of  these  books  as  a  part  of  the 
canon  of  Holy  Scripture? 


* 


142 


(3.)  Large  numbers  of  texts  of  Holy  Scripture  are  cited , 
which  are  entirely  without  value  for  the  proof  of  the 
specification.  It  is  unnecessary  to  pick  and  choose,  to  set 
this  forth.  The  passages  mentioned  hrst  under  the  speci¬ 
fications  will  suffice. 

(a.)  Many  texts  are  torn  from  their  context.  The  first 
passage  cited  is  from  Isa.  viii.  20.  The  passage  is  incor¬ 
rectly  translated  in  the  version  used,  for  the  meaning 
u  there  is  no  light  in  them  ”  is  not  justified.  The  Revised 
Version  renders  “  surely  there  is  no  morning  for  them, 
they  have  no  hope  of  a  dawn  of  brighter  things.  The 
proper  rendering  is : 

‘  ‘  When  they  say  unto  you,  Seek  unto  the  necromancers  and  unto  wizards ; 

Ye  chirpers  and  mutterers,  should  not  a  people  seek  unto  their  God? 

On  behalf  of  the  living  will  they  seek,  unto  the  dead  for  instruction  and  for 

testimony  ? 

If  they  say  not  so,  who  have  no  dawn,”  etc. 

This  passage  has  no  reference  whatever  to  the  Holy 
Scriptures,  or  any  part  of  them  \  but  is  a  rebuke  of  the 
people  of  Judah  for  seeking  necromancers  and  wizards, 
rather  than  the  living  God. 

(b.  )  Many  of  the  texts  are  given  in  King  James'  Version , 
in  cases  where  the  Revised  Version  gives  the  correct  ren¬ 
dering.  In  the  first  citation  under  Specification  2,  the 
passage  from  2  Tim.  iii.  16,  is  given  from  Ring  James 
Version;  but  the  Revised  Version  renders,  “  Every  Scrip¬ 
ture  inspired  of  God  is  also  profitable  for  teaching,  for 
reproof,  for  correction,  for  instruction  in  righteousness. 
There  is  a  difference  of  doctrine  here  which  is  of  some  im¬ 
portance  in  the  use  of  this  text  for  purposes  of  probation. 

(c.)  The  Confession  requires  that  in  all  controversies 
of  religion ,  the  Church  is  finally  to  appeal  to  the  original 
Old  Testament  in  Hebrew  and  the  New  Testament  in  Greek 
(§  18).  No  such  appeal  is  made  in  the  specifications,  even 
in  cases  where  the  version  quoted  is  regarded  by  scholars 


143 


as  incorrect  or  wrong.  Tlie  first  citation  under  Specifica¬ 
tion  3  is  from  King  James’  version  of  Jolm  v.  10.  If  one 
turn  to  tlie  original  Greek  he  will  see  tliat  the  translation, 

‘ c  believeth  not  the  record  that  God  gave  of  His  Son,”  does 
not  correspond  with  the  original,  which  reads  “  witness ,” 
and  that  witness  is  not  Holy  Scripture  either  in  whole  or 
in  part.  The  passage  is  therefore  irrelevant  to  the  speci¬ 
fication,  to  prove  that  I  am  in  error  in  teaching  that 
Martineau  found  divine  certainty  through  the  Reason. 
In  that  this  passage  of  Holy  Scripture  teaches  a  direct  and 
immediate  testimony  of  God  within  a  man  without  the 
mediation  of  Holy  Scripture,  it  rather  favors  the  doctrine 
that  God  may,  as  in  the  time  of  the  apostles,  pursue  this 
direct  method  with  some  men  in  our  days. 

(d.)  A  considerable  portion  of  the  verses  cited  have  no 
manner  of  relevancy  to  the  specifications  under  which 
they  are  given.  If  they  are  suffered  to  remain,  they  will 
tend  to  needlessly  prolong  the  trial.  The  three  citations 
from  Holy  Scripture  under  Specification  4,  from  1  Peter  i. 
23,  25 ;  Gal.  i.  8,  9 ;  John  xiv.  6,  have  no  manner  of  rele¬ 
vancy  to  the  question,  whether  men  are  or  are  not  “  in¬ 
fluenced  by  their  temperaments  and  environments  which 
of  the  three  ways  of  access  to  God  they  may  pursue.” 
That  men  are  ‘ ‘  begotten  again  ’  ’  through  ‘  ‘  the  W ord  of 
God,  ”  “  which  liveth  and  abideth  ’  ’ ;  that  an  ‘  ‘  anathema  ’  ’ 
is  pronounced  upon  any  one  who  preaches  ‘ 4  any  other 
gospel”  than  the  gospel  preached  by  Paul;  that  Jesus  is 
“  the  way,  the  truth,  and  the  life,”  and  “  no  one  cometh 
unto  the  Father  but  through  Him  ’  ’ ;  are  doctrines  taught 
in  these  passages  and  are  firmly  believed  by  me,  but  they 
have  nothing  whatever  to  do  with  the  doctrine  that  I  have 
taught  as  to  the  temperaments  and  the  environments  of  men. 

(e.)  I  question  the  propriety  of  quoting  any  passages  of 
Scripture  in  proof  of  doctrines  not  defined  by  the  West- 


144 


minster  Confession  and  Catechisms .  The  constitution  of 
the  Church  defines  the  limits  of  obligation,  and  also  pro¬ 
tects  the  minister  as  regards  all  matters  of  belief  and 
practice,  outside  of  those  limits.  If  this  Presbytery  had 
the  right  to  decide  the  interpretation  of  passages  of  Scrip¬ 
ture  for  the  official  determination  of  doctrines  undefined 
in  our  constitution,  there  would  be  a  new  way  of  amend¬ 
ing  and  enlarging  the  Confession  of  Faith  by  judicial  de¬ 
cisions  in  heresy  trials,  which  would  contravene  and  sub¬ 
vert  the  constitutional  method  of  revision,  which  has  been 
made  an  essential  part  of  our  constitution.  A  study  of 
these  proof -texts  exposes  the  fault  of  the  specifications  in 
this  particular. 

The  passages  from  Holy  Scripture  cited  under  specifica¬ 
tion  6  of  Charge  I.  are  60  in  number,  to  prove  that  Moses 
wrote  the  Pentateuch  and  Isaiah  wrote  the  whole  of  the 
book  that  bears  his  name.  Only  7  of  these  are  used  in  the 
Confession  of  Faith,  and  five  of  these  seven  under  other 
chapters  of  the  Confession  than  the  first,  leaving  only  two 
of  the  sixty  that  were  used  by  the  Westminster  divines  to 
prove  their  doctrine  of  the  Bible ;  and  these  two  not  to 
prove,  as  the  specification  would  use  them,  the  authorship 
of  the  Pentateuch  and  the  book  of  Isaiah ;  but  Luke  xxiv. 
27,  28,  to  prove  that  the  Apocrypha  are  no  part  of  the 
canon  of  Scripture ;  and  John  v.  46,  in  the  original  edition 
of  the  Confession,  to  prove  that  the  Church  is  to  appeal  to 
the  original  texts  of  Scripture ;  but  this  last  is  very  prop¬ 
erly  omitted  from  the  American  edition  of  proof -texts. 
This  fact  that  the  W  estminster  divines  use  only  2  of  the 
60  texts  cited  by  the  prosecution  for  proof  of  their  doctrine 
of  Scripture,  and  not  one  of  them  to  prove  that  Moses  was 
the  author  of  the  Pentateuch,  or  that  Isaiah  was  the 
author  of  the  book  that  bears  his  name,  ought  to  convince 
you  that,  even  if  they  are  relevant  to  the  specification,  they 
are  not  relevant  to  any  doctrine  taught  by  the  Confession. 


145 


Indeed  it  would  be  quite  easy  to  show  that  not  a  single 
one  of  the  large  number  of  Scripture  passages  adduced, 
has  any  force  for  the  proof  of  the  specifications  under 
which  they  are  adduced. 

All  of  these  passages  of  Holy  Scripture  are  accepted  and 
firmly  believed  by  me,  when  properly  rendered  according 
to  the  original  Hebrew,  Aramaic  and  Greek,  which  ‘  ‘  being 
immediately  inspired  by  God,  and  by  His  singular  care 
and  providence  kept  pure  in  all  ages,  and  therefore  authen- 
tical  ”  ;  “  in  all  controversies  of  religion,  the  Church  is 
finally  to  appeal  unto  them.” 

These  objections  to  the  sufficiency  of  the  charges  and 
specifications  placed  in  my  hand  by  order  of  the  Presby¬ 
tery  of  Hew  York,  as  to  their  form  and  legal  effect,  are 
hereby  respectfully  submitted  to  the  Presbytery  for  their 
judgment. 

C.  A.  Briggs. 

November  4th,  1891. 

At  this  point  (after  the  reading  of  Hr.  Briggs’  Re¬ 
sponse),  the  question  as  to  the  status  of  the  Prosecuting 
Committee  was  raised.  The  Moderator  decided  that  the 
Committee  was  properly  a  Committee  of  Prosecution  in 
view  of  the  previous  action  of  Presbytery  as  recorded, 
and  represented  the  Presbyterian  Church  in  the  United 
States  of  America,  and  was  in  the  house  as  an  original 
party  in  the  case,  under  provision  of  Section  10  of  the 
Book  of  Discipline,  and  is  now  virtually  independent  of 
Presbytery. 

An  appeal  was  taken  from  the  decision  of  the  Moderator. 
The  question  was  divided.  The  Moderator  was  sustained 
in  the  point  that,  the  Committee  was  in  the  house  as  a  prop¬ 
erly  appointed  Committee  of  prosecution.  The  Moderator 
was  also  sustained  in  the  point  that  the  Committee  as 


146 


representing  the  Presbyterian  Church  in  the  United  States 
of  America  was  an  original  party  in  the  Complaint. 

The  Rev.  Henry  Vandyke,  D.D.,  gave  notice  of  a  pro¬ 
test  in  behalf  of  himself  and  others  against  this  action, 

which  is  as  follows :  . 

« In  accordance  with  the  Book  of  Discipline,  Section  105, 

I  protest  against  the  ruling  of  the  Moderator  of  the  Pres¬ 
bytery  of  Hew  York  in  the  case  of  C.  A.  Briggs,  that  the 
Committee  consisting  of  Geo.  W.  F.  Birch,  Joseph  J. 
Lampe,  Robert  F.  Sample,  John  J.  McCook  and  John  J. 
Stevenson,  is  an  original  party  in  the  case,  and  therefore 
entitled'to  be  heard  first  under  rule  22  Book  of  Discipline, 
as  an  erroneous  decision  on  the  following  grounds : 

First,  in  a  case  arising  under  Common  Fame,  the  prose¬ 
outing  Committee  is  not  an  original  party.  See  Minutes 
of  General  Assembly  (0.  S.  1859,  page  563). 

Second,  this  Committee  has  not  been  appointed  to  con¬ 
duct  the  prosecution  in  all  its  stages,  in  whatever  judica¬ 
tory,  and  there  is  no  record  of  the  Presbytery  to  show  this 

appointment.” 

The  Rev.  Francis  Brown,  D.D.,  gave  notice  ot  a  Com¬ 
plaint  against  the  decision  of  the  Judicatory;  and  the 
Rev.  Charles  A.  Briggs,  D.D.,  gave  notice  of  an  appeal 

in  the  same  way. 

The  Committee  of  prosecution  was  then  heard. 

The  Rev.  Henry  Vandyke,  D.D.,  presented  the  follow- 

in°r  t 

' ^Resolved ,  That  the  Presbytery  in  the  exercise  of  the 
discretion  conferred  upon  it  by  the  Book  of  Discipline,  and 
in  view  of  the  facts  which  have  been  presented  to  us,  do 
now  dismiss  the  case. 

(Recess). 

The  following  Committee  was  appointed  to  answer  the 
protest  of  Dr.  Vandyke :  Rev.  Messrs.  Henry  B.  Elliot, 


147 


D.D.,  and  Charles  A.  Stoddard,  D.D.,  with  Elder’  Robert 
Beggs. 

The  question  before  the  house  at  the  hour  of  recess  was 
then  taken  up  and  was  amended  so  as  to  read  as  follows : 

“ Resolved ,  that  the  Presbytery  of  New  York,  having 
listened  to  the  paper  of  Rev.  Charles  A.  Briggs,  D.D.,  in 
the  case  of  the  Presbyterian  Church  in  the  United  States 
of  America  against  him  as  to  the  sufficiency  of  the  charges 
and  specifications  in  form  and  legal  effect :  and  without 
approving  of  the  positions  stated  in  his  inaugural  address, 
at  the  same  time  desiring  earnestly  the  peace  and  quiet  of 
the  Church,  and  in  view  of  the  declarations  made  by  Dr. 
Briggs  touching  his  loyalty  to  the  Holy  Scriptures  and  the 
Westminster  Standards,  and  of  his  disclaimers  of  interpre¬ 
tations  put  on  some  of  his  words,  deems  it  best  to  dismiss 
the  case,  and  hereby  does  so  dismiss  it.” 

On  motion  the  ayes  and  nays  were  ordered,  and  the  roll 
being  called,  resulted  as  follows  : 


MINISTERS — AFFIRMATIVE 


George  Alexander. 
Anson  P.  Atterbury. 
Nicholas  Bj erring. 
William  T.  Carr. 

Henry  B.  Chapin. 
Nathaniel  W.  Conkling. 
D.  Stuart  Dodge. 

Frank  F.  Ellinwood. 
William  T.  Elsing. 

Jesse  F.  Forbes. 

Charles  R.  GilleL 
John  Hall. 

William  R.  Harsh  aw. 
Charles  E.  Herring. 
Edward  W.  Hitchcock. 


Andrew  C.  Armstrong,  Jr. 
W.  W.  Atterbury. 

Lewis  W.  Barney. 

Francis  Brown. 

James  Chambers. 

Edward  L.  Clark. 

Ira  S.  Dodd. 

John  H.  Edwards. 

Henry  B.  Elliot. 

Henry  M.  Field. 

Herbert  Ford. 

Henri  L.  Grandlienard. 

A.  Woodruff  Halsey. 
Thomas  S.  Hastings. 
Spencer  L.  Hillier. 


148 


MINISTERS — AFFI 

James  H.  Hoadley. 

Samuel  M.  Jackson. 
Bartolomew  Kriisi. 

Joseph  P.  Lestrade. 

Wm.  M.  Martin. 

Francis  H.  Marling. 

Alex.  W.  McKinney, 

Geo.  J.  Mingins. 

Charles  H.  Parkliurst. 

Geo.  S.  Pay  son. 

Geo.  L.  Prentiss. 

Steal  y  B.  Rossiter. 
Frederick  N.  Rutan. 
Philip  Schaff. 

James  E.  Sentz. 

Andrew  Shiland.. 

Charles  A.  Stoddard. 
Charles  L.  Thompson. 
Marvin  R.  Vincent. 

Geo.  S.  Webster, 

John  T.  Wilds. 

ELDERS — 

Moses  M.  Brown. 

Herman  Zincke. 

Sam’l  Reeve. 

Thomas  S.  Strong. 

Henry  Bruning. 

Isaac  M.  Dyckman. 

Sidney  Whittemore. 
Cleveland  II.  Dod«;e. 
Edward  W.  Thompson. 
Robert  Gentle. 

Sidney  W.  Wilcox. 

J.  B.  Lindsley. 


iative — Continued . 

Joseph  R.  Kerr. 

Theodore  Leonhard. 

Daniel  E.  Lorenz. 

Wm.  J.  Macdowell. 

James  H.  Mcllvaine. 

Duncan  J.  McMillan. 

Daniel  H.  Overton. 

John  R.  Paxton. 

Vincent  Pisek. 

Hugh  Pritchard. 

Albert  G.  Ruliffson. 

Joseph  A.  Saxton. 

Adolphus  F.  Schauffler. 

J.  Balcom  Shaw. 

Wilton  M.  Smith. 

Geo.  L.  Spining. 

Henry  Van  Dyke. 

Frederick  E.  Voegelin. 
Erskine  N.  White. 

David  G.  Wylie.  — 71 

VFIRMATIVE. 

Theron  G.  Strong. 

John  Stewart. 

Francis  Rogers. 

Charles  H.  Woodbury. 

M.  E.  Fox. 

Henry  Q.  Hawley. 

Geo.  C.  Lay. 

Henry  B.  Caithness. 

William  Mitchell. 

Wm.  A.  Wheelock. 


C.  P.  Leggett.  — 23 

Affirmative .  94 


149 


MINISTERS — NEGATIVE 


Sam’l  D.  Alexander. 

Robert  R.  Booth 

Walter  D.  Buchanan. 

Thomas  S.  Bradner. 

Arthur  Folsom. 

Augustus  D.  L.  Jewett. 

Albert  B.  King. 

Sidney  G.  Law. 

John  C.  Lowrie. 

Alex.  McLean. 

Horace  G.  Miller. 

James  C.  Nightingale. 

George  Nixon. 

Levi  A.  Parsons. 

Wm.  M.  Paxton. 

Edward  P.  Pay  son. 

Wendell  Prime. 

James  S.  Ramsay. 

Charles  S.  Robinson. 

Joseph  Sanderson. 

Geo.  L.  Shearer. 

Wm.  G.  T.  Shedd. 

John  M.  Stevenson. 

J.  Ford  Sutton. 

Alex.  W.  Sproull. 

Abbott  L.  R.  Waite. 

John  J.  Thompson. 

—27 

ELDERS- 

—NEGATIVE. 

Geo.  M.  Jaques. 

John  C.  Tucker. 

Wm.  A.  Richmond. 

Andrew  Robinson. 

David  Peek. 

Robert  Beggs. 

Richard  H.  Bull. 

Frederick  Blume. 

Joseph  Moorhead. 

Thomas  Anderson. 

Wm.  M.  Onderdonk. 

Wm.  R.  Worrall. 

—12 

Negative . 

.  39 

After  the  announcement  of  the  vote,  the  Chairman  of  the 
Committee  of  Prosecution  gave  notice  of  an  Appeal  to  Synod 

On  motion  it  was  Resolved ,  that  a  vote  of  thanks  be 
tendered  to  the  Committee  for  its  diligence  and  fidelity. 

The  Rev.  Francis  Brown,  D.D.,  on  behalf  of  himself  and 
others,  gave  notice  of  a  complaint  against  the  decision  of 
the  Presbytery,  in  refusing  to  enter  upon  the  records  a 
motion  of  Elder  Woodbury  to  discharge  the  Prosecuting 
Committee,  which  was  ruled  by  the  Moderator  not  to  be 
in  order,  in  view  of  the  decision  of  the  morning.  The 
Presbytery  adjourned  with  prayer. 


150 


OFFICIAL  STENOGRAPHER’S  REPORT 

OF  THE 

MEETING  OF  THE  NEW  YORK  PRESBYTERY 

IN  THE  CASE  OF 

PROF.  CHARLES  A.  BRIGGS, 

Of  the  Union  Theological  Seminary,  on  November  4th,  1891. 

The  meeting  was  called  to  order  in  the  Scotch  Presby¬ 
terian  Church  at  10  A.  M.  by  the  Moderator,  Dr.  John  C. 
Bliss,  and  the  proceedings  commenced  with  prayer,  offered 
by  Dr.  Bliss. 


Pkayek. 

0  Lord  our  Maker,  our  Preserver,  and  our  Father  in 
Christ  Jesus,  as  we  are  here  met,  let  us  feel  that  we  are 
not  merely  in  the  presence  of  these  witnesses  looking  upon 
us,  or  of  those  viewing  us  from  the  world  without,  but 
rather  in  Thy  presence.  Give  us  such  a  deep  sense  of  that 
presence  that  we  may  forget  all  other  things  in  comparison 
with  it;  that  in  the  light  of  Thy  holiness  and  of  Thy 
greatness  we  may  see  ourselves  aright,  and  so  be  very 
humble  and  very  careful  in  all  that  we  think,  say  or  do. 
Upon  this  special  occasion  which  here  and  now  convenes  us, 
we  ask  for  Thy  special  blessing.  Thou  hast  said  if  any 
man  lack  wisdom,  if  he  ask  of  Thee,  it  shall  be  given 
him,  and  that  liberally  and  without  upbraiding.  In  Thy 
great  kindness  grant  us  this  wisdom,— the  wisdom  that  is 
from  above,— from  Thyself,  which  is  first  pure,  then 
peaceable,  gentle,  easy  to  be  entreated,  full  of  mercy  and 
good  fruits,  without  partiality  and  without  hypocrisy. 


151 


Give  this  wisdom  to  our  brother  who  is  called  here  to-day 
to  answer  for  his  views  concerning  Thy  Word,  and  with 
every  needful  grace  do  Thou  bless  him.  Give  this  wisdom 
unto  us  all  and  the  help  of  the  Holy  Spirit  that  we  may 
be  so  directed  in  our  deliberations,  that  with  perfect  calm¬ 
ness  of  mind,  and  fairness  of  mind,  we  shall  judge 
righteously  in  our  decisions.  And  0 !  Our  Father  grant 
us  true  patience ,  genuine  Christian  courtesy ,  and  that 
sweet  spirit  of  charity  which  thinketh  no  evil,  so  that  in 
all  our  proceedings  we  may  reflect  the  image  of  our  Master 
and  promote  His  honor.  We  ask  it  for  His  Name’s  sake. 
Amen. 

The  Moderator  :  (To  the  Clerk.)  The  roll  of  the  Pres¬ 
bytery  will  now  be  made  up.  Call  the  roll.  We  would 
suggest  that  as  the  arrangement  of  the  house  contemplates 
the  seating  of  the  Presbytery  in  advance  of  the  two 
columns  marked  u  Reserved  Seats,”  it  would  be  for  their 
comfort  and  convenience  to  occupy  those  seats  nearer  the 
desk,  and  so  we  would  be  within  easy  earshot  of  one 
another. 


Roll  Call  of  Presbytery. 

George  Alexander,  S.  H.  Alexander,  Andrew  C.  Arm¬ 
strong,  Jr.,  Anson  P.  Atterbury,  W.  Wallace  Atterbury,  3 
Lewis  W.  Barney,  Wm.  H.  Beach,  Geo.  W.  F.  Birch, 
John  C.  Bliss,  Thomas  S.  Bradner,  Charles  A.  Briggs, 
Francis  Brown,  Wm.  T.  Carr,  James  Chambers,  Henry  B. 
Chapin,  Edward  L.  Clark,  Nathaniel  W.  Conkling,  John 
B.  Bevins,  Ira  S.  Bodd,  B.  Stuart  Bodge,  Conrad  Boench, 
Thomas  Bouglas,  John  H.  Edwards,  Frank  F.  Ellinwood, 
Wm.  T.  Elsing,  Henry  M.  Field,  Jesse  F.  Forbes,  Herbert 
Ford,  Charles  R.  Gillett,  Henri  L.  Grandlienard,  A.  Wood¬ 
ruff  Halsey,  Edward  P.  Hammond,  Wm.  R.  Harshaw, 
Thomas  S.  Hastings,  Charles  E.  Herring,  Edward  W. 
Hitchcock,  James  H.  Hoadley,  Sam’l  M.  Jackson,  Joseph 


* 


152 


R.  Kerr,  Bartolomew  Krusi,  Theodore  Leonhard,  Daniel 
E.  Lorenz,  Wm.  M.  Martin,  Francis  H.  Marling,  Henry  T. 
McEwen,  Janies  H.  McHvaine,  Alex.  McKinney,  Charles 
H.  Parkhnrst,  John  R.  Paxton,  Geo.  S.  Payson,  Geo.  L. 
Prentiss,  Stealy  B.  Rossiter,  Albert  G.  Ruliffson,  Fred¬ 
erick  N.  Rutan,  Joseph  A.  Saxton,  Philip  Schaff,  James 
E.  Sentz,  J.  Balcom  Shaw,  Andrew  Shiland,  Wilton  M. 
Smith,  Geo.  L.  Spining,  Charles  L.  Thompson,  Henry 
Van  Dyke,  Marvin  R.  Vincent,  Frederick  E.  Voegelin, 
Thomas  G.  Wall,  Geo.  S.  Webster,  Erskine  H.  White, 
John  T.  Wilds,  David  G.  Wylie. 


Roll  Call  of  Elders. 

M.  M.  Brown,  Adams  Memorial;  Geo.  M.  Jaques, 
Bethany;  John  C.  Tucker,  Brick ;  William  A.  Richmond, 
Chalmers ;  Andrew  Robinson,  Christ ;  Theron  G.  Strong, 
Covenant;  David  T.  Peek,  Faith;  Robert  Beggs,  Fifth 
Avenue;  Richard  H.  Bull,  First;  H.  Zincke,  First  Union; 
Frederick  Blume,  Fourth;  John  Stewart,  Fourth  Avenue; 
Samuel  Reeve,  14th  Street;  Francis  Rogers,  Harlem;  J. 
Moorhead,  Knox ;  Thomas  S.  Strong,  Madison  Avenue ; 
Chas.  H.  Woodbury,  Madison  Square;  Henry  Bruning, 
Madison  Street;  M.  E.  Fox,  Morrisania;  I.  M.  Dyckman, 
Mt.  Washington;  Thomas  Anderson,  Hew  York;  Henry 
Q.  Hawley,  Park;  Sidney  Whittemore,  Phillips;  George 
C.  Lay,  Puritans ;  Cleveland  H.  Dodge,  Riverdale ;  Will¬ 
iam  M.  Onderdonk,  Rutgers;  H.  B.  Caithness,  Scotch; 
Edward  W.  Thompson,  Seventh ;  William  Mitchell,  Spring 
Street;  William  R.  Worrall,  13th  Street;  Robert  Gentle, 
Union  Tabernacle;  William  A.  Wheelock,  Washington 
Heights;  Sidney  F.  Wilcox,  West;  C.  P.  Leggett,  West 
End ;  Alexander  Wilson,  West  51st  Street ;  J.  B.  Lindsay, 
Westminster  of  West  23d  Street. 

Rev.  Mr.  McEiven :  Mr.  Moderator,  I  have  a  funeral  at 


153 


half -past  one  to-day,  and  I  should  like  to  be  excused  to 
attend  that  so  that  I  may  not  lose  my  rights. 

The  Moderator :  If  there  is  no  objection  it  will  be  5 
granted. 

Dr.  G.  L.  Shearer  :  The  objection  in  the  case  of  an  eccle¬ 
siastical  trial  is  that  it  requires  the  unanimous  consent  of 
three  parties,  that  is,  the  defendant,  and  the  plaintiff,  if 
we  may  so  style  them,  and  the  Court  itself ;  and  there 
cannot  be  any  excuse  without  that.  I  do  not  object  myself 
but  simply  to  keep  the  matter  right. 

The  Moderator :  That  will  come  up  later. 

Dr.  Rossiter  asked  if  the  elders  who  were  coming  in  late 
would  be  debarred  from  voting. 

The  Moderator :  No,  sir;  but  an  opportunity  will  be 
given  for  them  to  be  enrolled. 

Dr.  Wylie :  Shall  we  not  hear  the  report  of  the  Com¬ 
mittee  of  Arrangements? 

The  Moderator :  The  next  matter  before  us  is  the  report 
of  the  Committee  of  Arrangements  for  the  house,  and  any 
resolution  incidental  to  that  report. 

Dr.  Wylie:  The  Committee  of  Arrangements  would 
respectfully  report : 

First  :  That  pews  be  reserved  for  the  members  of  Pres¬ 
bytery,  for  Elders  belonging  to  our  city  churches  not  voting, 
and  that  the  rest  of  the  church  be  thrown  open  to  the  6 
general  public. 

Second  :  That  while  earnestly  desiring  to  provide 
accommodation  for  all  who  come,  when  the  pews  are  all 
filled  the  doors  of  the  church  be  closed.  And  in  order 
to  preserve  quiet  no  one  be  permitted  to  stand  in  the 
aisles. 

Third  :  The  Committee  also  recommend  that  an 
official  stenograx^her  be  employed,  and  that  Presbytery 
order  a  special  collection  in  all  the  churches  to  meet  the 
necessary  expenses  of  the  Presbytery. 


154 


Fourth  :  The  Committee  recommend  in  case  that  pro¬ 
ceedings  extend  beyond  to-day,  that  the  sessions  be  held 
from  2  to  5  P.M.,  and  that  a  recess  be  taken  to-day  from  1 
to  2  P.M.  By  order  of  Committee.  David  Ct.  Wylie, 

Chairman. 

The  Moderator:  What  is  yonr  pleasure  with  this 
report? 

Dr.  G.  L.  Shearer :  I  move  the  report  be  accepted  and 
adopted. 

The  Moderator :  It  is  moved  and  seconded  that  this 
report  be  adopted.  Those  in  favor  will  say  aye,  those 

opposed  no.  (The  motion  was  carried.) 

Dr.  Wylie :  I  am  not  through  yet.  If  it  is  the  wish 
of  the  Presbytery  to  secure  an  official  stenographer  now  is 
the  time  to  make  all  necessary  arrangements.  Dr.  Briggs 
informs  me  that  the  Seminary  has  employed  a  stenog¬ 
rapher,  and  it  has  been  thought  wise  to  have  a  gentleman 
here  who  could  be  secured  if  it  was  the  wish  of  the  Presby¬ 
tery.  We  want  to  be  perfectly  fair  to  all  the  parties,  and 
it  is  now  in  the  hands  of  the  Presbytery  to  say  whether 
they  wish  to  secure  the  stenographer  provided  by  Di. 
Briggs,  the  Union,  Seminary  stenographer,  or  the  other 
gentleman  who  is  here  and  who  can  be  employed  by  the 
Presbytery  in  an  official  manner.  I  bring  it  befoie  ^ou, 
without  making  the  motion  on  the  subject. 

Dr.  Shearer :  I  move  that  it  be  referred  to  the  clerk 

with  power  to  act. 

The  Moderator :  I  think  it  would  be  well  for  the  Pres¬ 
bytery  itself  to  settle  this  question. 

Dr.  Shearer  :  We  cannot  tell  as  to  the  qualifications  of 
the  stenographer.  "We  simply  refer  it  to  the  clerks  and 
they  can  find  that  out. 

The  Moderator  :  It  is  a  matter  that  should  be  provided 
for  at  once. 

Dr.  Wylie :  Here  is  a  gentleman  who  is  highly  recom- 


155 


mended,  who  has  worked  as  a  court  stenographer,  and  we  8 
can  make  a  satisfactory  arrangement  with  him.  If  you 
say  so  I  will  move  that  Mr.  Lucius  W.  How  be  secured  as 
our  official  stenographer.  Motion  seconded. 

The  Moderator :  It  is  moved  and  seconded  that  the  ser¬ 
vices  of  this  stenographer  be  secured.  Those  in  favor  of 
that  will  say  aye,  contrary  no.  The  motion  is  carried. 

We  have  already  decided  that  the  Presbytery  is  responsible 
for  the  expenses. 

Dr.  C.  S.  Robinson :  Mr.  Moderator,  may  I  ask  the 
question  whether  the  nooning  hour  between  1  and  2  o’clock 
has  been  fixed.  Nobody  seems  to  know  if  that  has  been 
fixed.  Can  that  be  changed  ?  There  will  be  members  that 
will  need  more  time  than  that.  There  are  many  of  us  who 
cannot  possibly  go  home  and  get  back  in  an  hour  from 
here.  If  it  is  agreeable  we  want  more  recess  for  that  sort 
of  thing,  if  we  are  going  to  begin  in  the  morning  and  go 
on  until  5  or  6  o’clock. 

The  Moderator :  We  are  not.  After  to-day  we  will 
begin  at  2  o’clock.  Is  that  satisfactory? 

Dr.  Robinson :  Yes,  sir. 

Dr.  Shearer :  Will  you  hear  a  brief  report  from  the 
Committee  on  Rules  that  were  adopted  for  the  government  g 
of  the  judicatory. 

The  Moderator :  Certainly. 

Dr.  Shearer :  The  Presbytery  at  the  last  session  ap¬ 
pointed  a  committee  to  report  on  the  meeting  of  the  General 
Assembly  at  the  last  meeting,  and  referred  to  the  Com¬ 
mittee  also  the  question  of  the  adoption  of  the  rules  of 
the  judicatory  which  were  framed  by  the  General  Assembly 
and  put  into  final  shape  in  1885.  This  Committee  finds, 
upon  inquiry  from  the  stated  Clerk,  that  during  his  term 
of  office  they  were  adopted  by  this  Presbytery,  but  the 
clerk  reports  that  there  is  no  record  of  their  adoption. 


J  56 


The  Committee  appointed  recommend  that  these  rules  be 
now  adopted  by  the  Presbytery.  Motion  seconded. 

The  Moderator :  It  is  moved  and  seconded  that  this 
Presbytery  do  formally  adopt  the  General  Pules  for 
Judicatories  as  approved  in  our  Book  and  as  amended 
in  1885,  and  that  we  be  governed  accordingly  by  these 
rules.  Are  you  ready  for  the  question?  Those  in  favor 
will  say  aye,  those  opposed  no.  It  is  so  ordered.  The 
Presbytery  is  now  ready  to  proceed  to  the  business 
assigned  for  trial,  and  it  becomes  me  to-day  as  Moderator 

10  to  remind  you  that  you  are  about  to  sit  in  a  judicial  capa¬ 
city,  not  in  the  capacity  of  an  ordinary  court  merely,  but 
as  a  Court  of  the  Lord  Jesus  Christ,  and  that  you  are  to 
consider  the  matter  seriously  before  you,  and  to  have 
regard  to  your  high  character  as  judges  of  such  a  court, 
and  of  the  solemn  duty  which  is  now  before  you. 

Dr.  Briggs  :  Mr.  Moderator - 

Dr.  B.  F.  Sample :  Mr.  Moderator,  should  the  minutes 
of  the  last  meeting  be  read  ? 

The  Moderator  :  That  is  a  question.  Perhaps  it  would 
be  well  that  we  have  an  order  of  procedure  suggested. 

Dr.  Briggs  (still  standing) :  Mr.  Moderator - 

The  Moderator  :  Dr.  Briggs,  just  a  moment.  I  would 
ask  you  if  you  wish  counsel. 

Dr.  Briggs  :  I  do  not. 

The  Moderator :  Dr.  Briggs  does  not  wish  counsel.  I 
would  now  give  the  status  of  the  matter  which  is  before 
us ;  that  action  was  taken  at  the  last  meeting  on  the  5th 
of  October,  upon  the  report  of  the  Committee  of  Prosecu¬ 
tion  appointed  at  a  prior  meeting  of  this  Presbytery. 
That  Committee  presented  certain  charges  and  specifica- 

11  tions  against  the  Pev.  Prof.  Chas.  A.  Briggs.  It  was 
decided  that  those  charges  and  specifications  be  presented 
to  him.  That  was  done  in  the  Presbytery,  and  a  citation 
by  order  of  the  Presbytery  was  issued  to  him  to  appear 


157 


and  make  answer  to  those  charges  and  specifications.  The 
question  naturally  arises  whether  these  should  be  read  at 
this  time,  or  whether,  they  having  already  been  read  in 
the  hearing  of  the  Presbytery  and  of  Dr.  Briggs,  and 
having  been  printed,  and  being  in  this  form  in  all  the 
hands  of  the  members  of  the  Presbytery,  that  be  considered 
sufficient.  As  a  matter  of  record  it  would  seem  as  if  some 
action  should  be  taken  at  this  point,  and  then  we  shall 
hear  from  Dr.  Briggs. 

Dr.  Henry  B.  Elliot :  I  move  that  be  considered  suffi¬ 
cient,  and  that  we  proceed  without  reading.  (Motion 
seconded  by  Dr.  Henry  M.  Field.) 

Dr.  Robinson :  Is  this  the  last  meeting,  or  is  it  not?  Is 
this  a  part  of  the  meeting  called  ‘ 6  the  last  meeting  ? 5  ’ 

The  Moderator :  It  is  a  continuation  of  that  meeting  in 
one  sense,  but  not  in  another  sense.  We  are  here  now 
proceeding  with  this  matter - 

Dr.  Robinson :  Is  this  meeting  a  part  of  the  one  that 
was  held  when  this  other  matter  was  brought  up  ? 

The  Moderator  :  Ho,  sir. 

Dr.  Robinson :  That  covers  the  question  whether  that 
was  another  meeting,  and  whether  the  minutes  should  be 
read.  If  that  was  a  part  of  this  meeting  they  do  not  need 
to  be  read.  Is  this  a  part  of  an  adjourned  meeting  or  a 
part  of  the  other  meeting,  or  is  it  an  independent  meeting  ? 

The  Moderator :  W e  are  now  acting  in  a  different  capa¬ 
city.  We  are  here  now  as  a  court.  At  the  other  meeting 
it  was  simply  a  meeting  of  the  Presbytery,  but  the  ques¬ 
tion  now  before  us  is  whether  the  plaintiff  in  this  action 
shall  be  heard,  and  we  as  a  court  consider  this  matter 
coming  under  our  view,  and  in  our  consideration  of  the 
merits  of  the  case,  it  is  essential  that  we  should  put  our¬ 
selves  right.  The  plaintiffs  on  one  side  and  Dr.  Briggs  on 
the  other  are  now  present,  and  we  should  listen  to  the 
reading  of  the  charges  and  specifications  or  agree  that  they 


158 


be  accepted  in  their  printed  form.  Is  it  agreed  that  this 
is  sufficient  to  bring  this  matter  before  the  Court? 

Dr.  Briggs  :  It  is  agreed. 

The  Moderator  :  And  the  other  party  also  agrees?  (Dr. 
Birch  assents).  It  is  so  held.  It  is  now  understood ;  and 
the  question  now  is  what  has  Dr.  Briggs  to  say  in  return 
^3  to  this  citation  which  has  been  issued  to  him. 

Dr.  Briggs  :  Mr.  Moderator - 

The  Moderator  :  Will  Dr.  Briggs  just  wait  a  moment. 
It  is  thought  that  we  should  have  the  names  added  of  any 
brethren  who  have  come  in  since  the  roll  was  called.  If 
any  are  present  they  will  please  announce  themselves 
immediately. 

Dr.  Sutton,  Dr.  Stevens,  Mr.  Bradner  and  Mr.  Wild 
were  then  named  as  being  present,  and  not  being  present 
at  the  time  of  the  roll  call. 

The  Moderator :  Are  there  any  other  Elders  who  have 
come  in?  Mr.  Henry  Bruning  of  the  Madison  Street 
Church,  Rev.  Mr.  Folsom,  Andrew  Robinson,  of  Christ 
Church,  M.  E.  Fox,  of  Morrisania  First  Church,  and  Rev. 
Mr.  Ruliifson,  answered  as  present.  Dr.  Smith  was  also 
stated  to  have  just  come  into  the  house. 

The  Moderator :  The  Moderator  thinks  that  we  should 
now  proceed.  If  there  are  others  who  have  not  been 
announced  as  having  been  here  during  the  proceedings, 
their  names  can  be  entered  before  we  take  recess,  or  at 
our  re-assembling,  when  the  roll  will  have  to  be  called 
again ;  and  it  would  be  just  as  well  to  remind  the  breth¬ 
ren  that  this  is  a  rule  we  cannot  now  deviate  from ;  that 
the  roll  is  to  be  called  upon  our  assembling  when  we  sit 
^  beyond  one  session. 

Mr.  McCook  :  And  before  adjournment? 

The  Moderator :  And  before  we  adjourn  also.  Dr. 
Briggs  has  the  floor. 

Dr.  Briggs  then  read  his  paper  “  tiling  objections  ’ 5 


159 


which  is  entitled  c  c  Response  to  the  Charges  and  Specifi¬ 
cations  ”  (see  p.  115  of  this  Record).  After  reading  it  he 
took  his  seat. 

Dr.  Henry  Van  Dyke :  Mr.  Moderator,  I  desire  to 
make  a  motion. 

The  Moderator  :  We  shall  hear  now  from  the  parties  on 
the  other  side. 

Dr.  Van  Dyke :  Mr.  Moderator,  is  that  the  ruling 
which  you  hold? 

The  Moderator  :  I  hold  that  a  motion  now  is  not  in 
order.  The  rule  says  “the  parties  shall  be  heard”  on 
these  questions.  Dr.  Briggs  states  his  objections,  and 
now  the  plaintiff  on  the  other  side  has  a  right  to  answer 
the  objections. 

Dr.  Van  Dyke :  I  propose  to  submit  to  that  ruling,  but 
I  cannot  submit  without  protest.  It  involves  a  very  im¬ 
portant  point.  It  involves  the  point  whether  the  Com¬ 
mittee  is  an  original  party  or  not.  It  involves  that  very 
important  point  in  the  procedure,  and  as  a  ruling  of  this 
point  will  be  a  part  of  the  proceedings  of  this  body,  there¬ 
fore,  with  entire  respect  to  you,  sir,  and  without  any 
spirit  of  opposition  to  your  ruling,  but  simply  with  a  ^ 
desire  to  guard  the  constitutional  points  which  will  be 
very  carefully  observed,  I  will  inquire  of  you  whether 
that  ruling  means  that  the  Committee  is  an  original  party 
in  this  case. 

The  Moderator :  The  Moderator’s  decision  is  that  this 
Committee  represents  the  Presbyterian  Church  in  the 
United  States  of  America  as  the  original  party. 

Dr.  Van  Dyke:  And  the  Committee  is  an  original 

party  ? 

The  Moderator  :  Yes,  sir 

Dr.  Van  Dyke:  I  beg  leave,  with  your  consent,  to 
enter  a  protest  against  this  ruling,  first,  on  the  ground 
that  in  a  case  arising  under  common  fame  a  prosecuting 


160 


Committee  is  not  an  original  party  (see  Moore’s  Digest, 
Edition  of  1873,  page  563) ;  and,  second,  on  the  ground 
that  this  Committee,  appointed  to  prepare  and  arrange 
the  papers,  has  never  been  legally  appointed  as  a  pros¬ 
ecuting  committee.  That  protest  I  very  respectfully 
wish  to  enter  on  the  minutes. 

Prof.  J.  J.  Stevenson :  Any  decisions  as  far  back  as  1873 
are  utterly  valueless  in  this  case.  The  sections  of  the 
Book  of  Discipline  under  which  we  proceed  are  found  only 
in  the  new  Book  of  Discipline,  and  the  Constitution  states 
that  the  Judicatory  shall  appoint  one  or  more  of  its  own 
l  $  members  a  Committee  to  conduct  the  prosecution  in  all 
stages,  in  whatever  judicatory,  until  a  final  issue  be 
reached.  In  the  tenth  section  we  read  when  the  prosecu¬ 
tion  is  initiated  by  a  Judicatory  the  Presbyterian  Church 
in  the  United  States  of  America  shall  be  the  prosecutor 
and  original  plaintiff.  Under  this  new  Book  we  proceed. 
Under  this  new  Book  the  Presbyterian  Church  in  the 
United  States  of  America  appears  before  this  Court  in  the 
person  of  this  Committee  as'  the  original  party,  as  one  of 
the  original  parties,  as  the  prosecutor;  and  as  such  we 
have  a  right  to  answer. 

Dr.  Van  Dy~ke :  I  would  say  I  would  much  prefer  to 
hear  this  Committee  now ;  but  I  do  not  wish  this  Presby¬ 
tery  to  commit  itself  to  this  ruling.  There  is  no  record  on 
the  books  of  this  Presbytery  to  show  that  this  Committee 
was  appointed  according  to  Section  10  to  conduct  the  pros¬ 
ecution  in  all  its  stages  until  a  final  issue  be  reached. 
Even  if  you  had  entertained  my  motion,  I  should  at 
once  have  yielded  the  floor  in  courtesy  to  the  Com¬ 
mittee. 

Mr.  James  H.  fHoadley :  (To  members  desiring  to  get 
copies  of  Dr.  Briggs’  paper).  I  want  to  announce  that  it 
17  is  the  desire^that  the  press  receive  these  copies  now  and 
that  they  be  given  to  the  Presbytery  at  a  later  date. 


161 


The  Moderator  :  Shall  the  request  be  granted  that  this 
protest  be  entered  on  the  record  ? 

Dr.  Robinson  :  Mr.  Moderator,  I  wish  to  ask  whether 
that  is  a  protest  or  point  of  order  first ;  and  in  the  sec¬ 
ond  place  I  wish  to  say  that  no  such  motion  is  either  neces¬ 
sary  or  in  order.  Nobody  can  make  a  protest  unless  he 
offers  it  in  writing.  He  can  make  a  protest  without  any 
motion  whatever.  If  Dr.  Yan  Dyke  is  entitled  to  it  as  a 
protest,  if  it  be  a  protest,  he  must  put  it  in  writing,  and 
hand  it  in ;  and  then  it  will  be  his  right  without  any  vote. 

If  that  is  a  point  of  order  it  is  already  decided,  sir,  and 
we  can  move  on  ;  and  I  wish  to  know  whether  it  is  a  pro- 
test  or  a  point  of  order. 

The  Moderator  :  It  is  understood  to  be  a  protest,  which 
will  be  entered  on  the  records,  and  a  provision  made  for 
its  answer. 

Prof.  Francis  Brown  :  Without  desiring  to  take  the 
time  of  the  Presbytery,  this  should  be  thoroughly  consid¬ 
ered.  If  the  Moderator  rules  that  the  Committee  is  an 
original  party  it  will  be  in  the  face  of  action  which  the 
Presbytery  took  at  the  last  meeting.  I  question  very  13 
much  whether  the  Presbytery  is  prepared,  if  the  Moderator 
will  allow  me  to  say  so,  to  sustain  him  in  this  ruling. 

The  question  is  simply  this  :  There  is  no  doubt  that, 
according  to  the  book,  the  Presbyterian  Church  in  the 
United  States  of  America  is  the  prosecutor  and  an  origi¬ 
nal  party.  The  simple  question  is  who  represents  the 
Presbyterian  Church  in  the  United  States  of  America  on 
the  floor  in  this  house.  Clearly  as  was  stated  the  last 
time,  and  the  Presbytery  acknowledged  it,  it  is  the  Pres¬ 
bytery.  The  Committee,  whatever  its  functions  may  be, 
is  a  creature  of  the  Presbytery.  The  point  was  raised  by 
Dr.  Yan  Dyke  at  the  last  meeting  and  was  accepted  by  the 
Presbytery  as  the  clear  common-sense  interpretation  of 
the  rules.  It  is  not  an  isolated  idea  of  the  members  of  the 


162 


Presbytery.  It  is  a  matter  of  constitutional  law,  and  can 
be  decided  by  the  proper  means.  If  the  Presbytery,  as  an 
original  party  representing  the  Presbyterian  Church  if 
the  Presbytery  decides  that  the  Committee  will  now  be 
heard,  through  its  Committee  or  anybody  else,  that  is  one 
question  ;  but  it  is  by  no  means  to  be  assumed  that  the 
Presbytery  will  so  choose  unless  that  has  been  manifested 
in  some  proper  way.  I  submit,  therefore,  Mr.  Moderator, 
that  the  Committee  cannot  be  regarded  as  the  representa- 
19  tive  of  the  Presbyterian  Church  in  the  United  States  of 
America  except  so  far  as  this  Presbytery  has  appointed 
this  Committee  for  a  particular  service ;  and  further  that 
the  records  of  the  Presbytery  do  not  show  that  this  Com- 
mitteewas  appointed  to  conduct  the  prosecution  in  all  the 
courts ;  and  if  the  record  be  referred  to  the  exact  limits  Oi 
the  duties  of  this  Committee  will  be  found  to  be  there 
stated  in  the  resolution  under  which  it  was  appointed.  If 
mv  memory  serves  me  it  can  be  shown,  without  reference 
to” the  records,  that  the  very  first  appearance  upon  any  offi¬ 
cial  document  of  the  Presbytery  of  the  term  of  “  Com¬ 
mittee  of  Prosecution  ’  ’  in  connection  with  this  body  of 
gentlemen,  is  on  the  cover  of  the  report  wThich  they  pre¬ 
sented  to  the  Presbytery  at  its  meeting  on  the  5th  of  Octo¬ 
ber.  There  is  no  record  on  the  minutes  of  the  Presbytery 
of  last  May  or  last  June,  or  prior  to  the  presentation  of 
that  report,  that  any  Committee  of  Prosecution  has  been 
announced,  that  any  Committee  has  been  appointed  to 
prosecute  this  case  in  the  different  courts  of  this  church. 
The  wording  is  to  thfs  effect,  that  a  Committee  be  appointed 
to  arrange  and  prepare  the  necessary  proceedings  proper  in 
the  case  of  Dr.  Briggs.  I  submit,  Mr.  Moderator,  that 
that  is  not  a  Prosecuting  Committee  according  to  the  terms 
required  by  the  Book.  For  these  two  reasons,  I  beg  to 
20  express  my  very  respectful  dissent  from  the  ruling  of  the 
Moderator,  and  should  hope  that  the  Presbytery  may 


163 


have  an  opportunity  to  decide  the  point,  and  if  it  be  in 
order  I  would  with  entire  submission  appeal  from  the 
decision  of  the  Moderator. 

Dr.  Andrew  Shiland  seconded  the  motion. 

Dr.  F.  H.  Marling  contended  that  the  appeal  should  be 
made  by  Professor  Brown  and  signed  by  others,  including 
Dr.  Van  Dyke. 

The  Moderator  :  Let  us  not  get  away  from  the  matter 
in  hand.  The  question  which  has  been  raised  is  a  very 
serious  question.  The  Moderator  has  already  met  this 
question  and  has  been  wrestling  with  it.  There  are  differ¬ 
ent  views  in  regard  to  it  on  the  part  of  many  minds,  and 
there  are  different  positions  taken  concerning  it.  Remem¬ 
ber  this,  that  this  is  a  new  order.  We  have  no  precedent 
to  appeal  to.  We  are  virtually  establishing  the  law  and 
the  usage,  or  rather  the  practice  under  the  law  as  it  is 
written  in  this  new  section  of  our  book.  But  we  cannot 
discuss  that  now.  It  may  come  up  in  another  way  after¬ 
wards.  The  simple  matter  before  us  is  the  objections 
which  Dr.  Briggs  has  presented.  He  has  stated  his  side 
in  those  objections,  and  the  next  thing  is  to  hear  the  par¬ 
ties  on  the  other  side.  Now  the  question  is  raised  whether 
this  party  is  in  the  attitude,  which  is  claimed  by  the  Com¬ 
mittee  of  Prosecution,  of  representing  the  original  party 
in  the  case,  the  Presbyterian  Church  in  the  United  States 
of  America.  The  Moderator  decides  that,  under  this  new 
order  that  we  have  in  our  book,  the  Committee  of  Prose¬ 
cution  is  here  in  its  proper  attitude  as  the  representative 
of  the  Presbyterian  Church  of  the  United  States  of  Amer¬ 
ica  as  the  original  party ;  that  each  member  of  that  Com¬ 
mittee,  forming  the  Committee  as  a  whole,  is  a  representa¬ 
tive  of  that  original  party.  A  protest  is  made  by  Dr.  Van 
Dyke  against  this  decision  of  the  Moderator,  that  will  be 
entered  uj)on  the  record.  It  will  be  answered,  probably, 
and  it  will  go  up  as  a  part  of  our  record.  It  will  come 


21 


164 


for  an  interpretation  before  the  Synod,  and  the  correctness 
or  incorrectness  of  the  Moderator’s  decision  in  the  matter 
will  come  up,  but  that  is  not  a  matter  for  discussion  now. 

Dr.  Van  Dyke  :  That  is  exactly  what  I  want. 

The  Moderator :  The  only  hesitation  I  have  is  that  we 
should  not  go  away  from  the  merits  of  the  objections  now 
presented,  which  will  be  answered  by  the  Committee  of 
Prosecution. 

C.  H.  Woodbury :  Let  me  say  one  word.  There  is  a 
22  difference  of  opinion  on  one  fundamental  fact,  and  that 
is,  whether  this  Committee  has  been  appointed  a  Commit¬ 
tee  of  Prosecution.  Dr.  Brown  says,  according  to  his 
recollection,  that  no  such  formal  appointment  of  the  Com¬ 
mittee  has  been  made.  Now,  the  records  will  certainly 
show  whether  they  have  or  not.  If  it  has  not  been  made, 
then  the  Committee  is  not  in  a  position  to  be  a  party. 

The  Moderator :  On  that  question,  the  Moderator  is 
obliged  to  decide  that,  while  in  certain  aspects  of  the 
matter  the  language  did  not  state  definitely  that  this  Com¬ 
mittee  of  Prosecution  was  so  called,  yet,  under  the  action 
taken  at  the  previous  meeting,  which  said  we  should  pro¬ 
ceed  with  the  investigation,  and  that  Committee  having 
been  appointed  for  that  purpose  and  so  acting  in  our  last 
meeting,  and  the  Presbytery  haring  taken  action  after 
debate  upon  the  report  of  the  Committee,  which  presented 
charges  and  specifications ,  and  the  Presbytery  having 
issued  its  citation  to  Professor  Briggs,  which  was  a  judi¬ 
cial  movement  on  its  part,  and  Professor  Briggs  having  now 
appeared  in  this  Court  this  morning  filing  objections,  we 
are  certainly  launched  upon  this  matter  in  a  legal  way, 
and  so  the  Moderator  is  obliged  to  recognize  the  matter  as 
regular  and  this  Committee  of  Prosecution  as  being  in  the 
house  as  the  representative  of  the  original  party,  which  is 
23  the  Presbyterian  Church  in  the  United  States  of  America. 

Dr.  Van  Dyke  :  Mr.  Moderator,  let  me  say  one  thing 


165 


further.  It  is  a  question  of  fact  that  is  here,  whether  the 
record  does  show  the  appointment  of  a  Committee. 

The  Moderator  :  Does  the  brother  wish  the  record  to  be 
read  ? 

Mr.  Woodbury  :  I  understand  Brother  Brown  to  mention 
that  as  a  fact — to  bring  this  before  the  Presbytery — the 
point  that  this  Committee  has  not  been  appointed  Com¬ 
mittee  of  Prosecution.  I  have  no  recollection  of  that  point, 
but  he  has. 

The  Moderator  :  Is  it  necessary  to  bring  this  record  in 
now? 

T)i .  Brown  :  I  hope  the  record  will  be  read.  I  have  no 
desire  to  protract  the  debate,  but  it  seems  to  be  important 
that  the  Committee  should  understand  how  this  stands. 

The  record  was  read  as  follows  :  “12th  May,  1891.  It 
was  moved,  on  the  recommendation  of  the  majority  report, 
viz.,  that  the  Presbytery  enter  at  once  upon  the  judicial 
investigation  of  the  case.  The  motion  was  carried.  On 
motion,  it  was  resolved  that  a  Committee  be  appointed  to 
arrange  and  prepare  the  necessary  proceedings  appropriate 
in  the  case  of  Prof.  Briggs.” 

The  Moderator  :  The  Moderator  must  maintain  his  de¬ 
cision  on  that  point. 

Dr.  Charles  L.  Thompson  :  Mr.  Moderator,  I  feel  it 
important  in  the  interest  of  proper  record  that  the  attention 
of  the  Moderator  should  again  be  called  to  the  point  made 
by  Dr.  Marling  with  reference  to  the  right  of  protest.  Dr. 
Van  Dyke,  as  I  understand  it,  has  no  right  of  protest 
against  the  decision  of  the  Moderator.  He  has  a  right  to 
appeal,  however,  to  the  members  from  the  decision  of  the 
Moderator.  If  the  Moderator’s  decision  is  sustained  by 
the  members  he  then  acquires,  and  not  till  then,  the  right 
of  protest  against  any  decision  of  the  Moderator  by  the 
action  of  the  Presbytery. 

Dr.  Van  Dylce :  The  book  says  a  protest  is  a  more 


24 


166 


formal  declaration  bearing  testimony  against  .  wliat  .  is 
deemed  a  mischievous  or  erroneous  decision,  and  including 

a  statement  of  the  reasons  thereof. 

Dr.  Marling :  I  will  read  from  Chapter  10,  page  343, 

of  the  rules  governing  the  Presbytery  : 

‘  ‘  A  protest  is  a  more  formal  declaration,  made  by  one 
or  more  members  of  a  minority,  bearing  testimony  against 
what  is  deemed  a  mischievous  or  erroneous  proceeding, 
decision  or  judgment,  and  including  a  statement  of  the 
reasons  therefor.” 

25  The  next  clause  reads : 

“  If  a  Dissent  or  Protest  be  couched  in  decorous  and 
respectful  language,  and  be  without  offensive  reflections  or 
insinuations  against  the  majority ,  it  shall  be  entered  on 

the  records.” 

A  Member  :  I  second  the  motion  of  Dr.  Brown. 

The  Moderator  :  Dr.  Brown  appeals. 

Dr.  Van  Dyke :  I  will  withdraw  my  protest  that  an  appeal 
may  be  taken.  All  I  want  is  to  get  a  clean  recoid  when  it 

comes  to  the  Synod. 

Dr.  Brown :  May  I  say  a  single  word  in  explanation, 
Mr.  Moderator?  The  point  is  simply  this  :  The  Moderator, 
as  I  understand,  has  decided  that  the  Prosecuting  Com¬ 
mittee  so  called— I  am  not  prepared  to  admit  the  correct¬ 
ness  of  the  name — is  now  an  original  party  as  representing 
directly  the  Presbyterian  Church  in  the  United  States  of 
America.  The  exception  to  the  ruling  taken  is  that  this 
Committee  does  not  directly  represent  the  Piesbyterian 
Church  in  the  United  States  of  America .  it  is  simply  the 
Committee  of  this  Presbytery.  Whatever  representation 
there  is  of  the  Presbyterian  Church  of  the  United  States 
of  America  in  this  house  is  vested  in  the  Presbytery  itself  ', 
and  it  is  on  that  ground  that  the  appeal  is  asked  from  the 
decision  of  the  Moderator.  What  I  hold  in  my  hand  is  a 
26  letter  from  a  very  high  authority  in  the  Church  on  Ecclesi- 


167 


astical  Law,  from  which  I  will  ask  leave  to  read  one  single 
sentence  :  “  The  parties  thus  far  are  the  judicatory,  which 
initiates  the  prosecution,  represented  by  the  Committee  as 
appointed,  and  the  accused,  who  has  been  furnished  with  the 
charges  and  specifications,”  and  there  is  not  the  slightest 
disposition  to  prevent  the  representative  of  the  Presbytery 
from  being  heard  in  answer  to  the  objections  which  have 
been  filed,  not  the  slightest.  It  is  simply  a  question  of 
whether  or  not  this  Committee  does  represent  this  Presby¬ 
tery  or  represents  a  body  out  of  the  control  of  this  Pres¬ 
bytery,  and  is  therefore  independent — wholly  independent 
of  this  Presbytery.  Now  it  is  naturally  conceivable  that 
that  question,  apart  from  other  questions  in  the  case,  may 
be  of  considerable  importance  at  a  later  stage  of  the  case, 
and  it  is  upon  that  ground  that  the  point  is  raised  and  the 
decision  of  the  Moderator  is  appealed  from.  I  am  given 
authority  to  use  the  name  of  the  writer ;  it  is  Dr.  W.  E. 
Moore,  of  Columbus,  Ohio. 

The  Moderator :  The  Moderator  says  he  has  a  letter  on 
the  same  point  from  an  authority  equally  high,  and,  as  has 
already  been  stated,  the  brethren  will  understand  that  we 
are  on  new  ground  and  we  have  to  feel  our  way  the  best  we 
can.  The  Moderator’s  decision  is,  as  you  have  heard,  that  27 
this  Committee  is  correctly  constituted ;  that  it  is  in  the 
house  as  the  representative  of  the  Presbyterian  Church  in 
the  United  States  of  America ;  that  it  has  power  to  carry 
this  case  on  (as  will  probably  be  done  in  that  form,  or 
some  other)  from  one  court  to  the  other;  and  without 
wishing  to  influence  the  house  at  all,  the  Moderator  is  of 
the  opinion  that  this  is,  perhaps,  the  simpler  way  to  come 
at  the  matter,  and  go  on  with  our  work  and  reach  a  decided 
issue  one  way  or  the  other.  Now,  that  is  the  decision  of 
the  Moderator,  and  you  appeal  from  that.  Of  course, 
the  Moderator  is  only  too  glad  to  be  subject  to  the  greater 


168 


wisdom  of  liis  brethren.  The  question  is  upon  the  appeal, 
and  there  is  no  further  debate  in  order. 

Dr.  Booth  :  Will  you  read  clearly  the  statement? 

The  Moderator  :  ‘  ‘  When  the  Prosecution  is  initiated 
by  a  Judicatory,  the  Presbyterian  Church  of  the  United 
States  of  America  shall  be  the  prosecutor  and  an  original 
party.  In  all  other  cases  the  individual  prosecutor  shall 
be  an  original  party.”  In  explanation  of  that  position 
the  idea  is  this,  that  the  Presbytery  having  once  commit¬ 
ted  itself  to  the  matter  of  prosecution  and  appointed  a 
Committee  for  that  purpose,  practically  has  no  further 

28  control  of  that  Committee  until  it  completes  its  function. 
That  function  will  not  be  completed  until,  if  the  Commit¬ 
tee  choose,  it  shall  carry  the  case  to  the  last  court  of 
appeal;  that  in  the  meantime  that  Committee  as  to  its 
entire  membership  is  virtually  not  a  part  of  the  Presby¬ 
tery,  and  the  members  of  it  have  no  vote  on  any  decision 
that  shall  be  made ;  but,  of  course,  they  have  a  right  to 
be  heard  on  points  of  objection  and  as  to  the  merits  of  the 
main  question.  That  Committee  will  continue  in  existence 
until  its  function  is  completed.  The  Presbytery  has  for 
the  time  being  no  further  control  of  it.  That  is  the  position 
which  is  involved  in  the  decision  of  this  question.  Are 
you  ready  for  the  question? 

Dr.  Thompson  :  What  is  the  question  now? 

The  Moderator  :  The  question  is  on  the  appeal  from  the 
decision  of  the  Moderator. 

Dr.  Thompson :  What  is  that  decision? 

The  Moderator :  The  decision  is  that  this  Committee 
has  been  properly  constituted  as  a  Committee  of  Prosecu¬ 
tion,  and  represents  the  Presbyterian  Church  in  the  United 
States  of  America  as  an  original  party ;  and  that  its 
power  is  to  carry  this  case  on  to  completion.  Is  that  clear? 

Dr.  Thompson :  Yes ;  that  is  clear. 

29  Dr.  E.  N.  White :  Will  you  read  the  next  section  which 


169 


alludes  to  the  appointment  of  a  Committee,  and  tell  us 
whether  it  is  an  inference. 

The  Moderator :  The  statements  that  have  just  been 
made  are  in  inference,  or  rather  a  fuller  statement  of  the 
ideas  involved  in  the  decision  here  presented.  The  next 
section  is,  “  When  the  Prosecution  is  initiated  by  a  Judi¬ 
catory,  it  shall  appoint  one  or  more  of  its  own  members  a 
Committee  to  conduct  the  Prosecution  in  all  its  stages  in 
whatever  Judicatory,  until  the  final  issue  be  reached  \ 
provided,  that  any  appellate  Judicatory,”  &c.  (Book  of 
Discipline,  Sec.  11.) 

Dr .  Shearer :  May  I  request  the  reading  of  Pule  42  ? 

(“  Gren.  Rules  for  Judicatories  ”). 

The  Moderator :  The  reading  of  Rule  42  is  called  for. 

It  is,  “  But  in  cases  of  process  on  the  ground  of  general 
rumor,  where  there  is,  of  course,  no  particular  accuser, 
there  may  be  a  Committee  appointed  (if  convenient)  who 
shall  be  called  the  ‘  Committee  of  Prosecution,  ’  and  who 
shall  conduct  the  whole  cause  on  the  part  of  the  prosecu¬ 
tion.  The  members  of  this  Committee  shall  not  be  per¬ 
mitted  to  sit  in  judgment  in  the  case.” 

Dr.  Marling :  Mr.  Moderator,  I  would  like  to  call  for  80 
a  division  of  the  question  appealed.  One  is  whether  a 
Prosecuting  Committee  exists.  That  was  one  part  of  the 
question.  The  next  is,  what  are  the  powers  of  the  Pros¬ 
ecuting  Committee  in  relation  to  the  Presbytery,  whether 
the  Presbytery  retains  any  control  over  the  Committee, 
after  it  has  been  once  appointed ;  for  example,  if  it  hap¬ 
pened  that  the  Committee  was  a  Committee  of  One,  and 
that  Committee  dies,  the  Presbytery  would  have  power  to 
replace  him  or  appoint  some  one  else.  I  submit  the  two 
questions  are  distinct  questions,  and  I  therefore  ask  for  a 
division,  that  an  appeal  be  taken  on  the  two  parts  of  your 
decision. 

Dr  of .  Stevenson  :  Mr.  Moderator,  if  the  question  is  to 


170 


be  divided  in  that  way  I  shall  not  ask  to  be  heard  now, 
but  debate  and  explanations  have  been  made  on  the  other 
side  as  to  the  appointment  of  the  Committee,  and  before 
the  question  is  put  on  that  appeal  we  must  be  heard.  The 
matter  has  been  fully  discussed  on  the  other  side,  and  we 
must  be  heard. 

Dr.  Andrew  Shiland  desired  to  make  a  motion,  but  was 
ruled  out  of  order. 

Prof.  Briggs :  I  want  to  ask  a  question  as  to  fact.  A 
few  days  before  the  last  meeting  of  the  Presbytery  when 
31  the  charges  were  presented  I  was  waited  upon  at  my  house 

by  a  member  of  the  Committee - 

The  Moderator :  Prof.  Briggs  will  have  to  yield  to  the 
Moderator’s  decision  that  we  are  going  astray.  An  appeal 
is  made,  and  that  is  not  debatable. 

j Prof.  Briggs  :  This  is  directly  to  the  point  that  has 

been  raised. 

The  Moderator  :  If  it  is  for  the  purpose  of  information - 

Prof.  Briggs  :  When  the  Moderator  has  heard  what  I 

have  to  say  he  will  be  able  to  find  out. 

Dr.  Pobinson :  Is  there  no  end  to  this  discussion  ? 
When  an  appeal  is  made  the  vote  has  got  to  be  taken.  It 
is  not  debatable.  When  the  appeal  is  made  it  has  got 
to  be  taken.  When  the  point  of  order  is  decided  by  the 
Moderator  that  ends  that  part  of  the  discussion ;  then  an 
appeal  comes  up  and  it  is  required  that  a  vote  be  taken. 
No  facts  are  necessary  to  an  appeal.  If  I  am  not  stating 
the  point  of  order  correctly,  I  need  to  be  corrected.  No  word 
is  tolerated  after  that  one  word  “  appeal”  is  pronounced. 

The  Moderator:  I  think  the  brother  is  right.  The 
appeal  will  now  be  taken.  The  Moderator  must  insist 
upon  it.  We  are  going  into  questions  that  involve  great 
difference  of  opinion.  The  question  is  on  sustaining  the 
32  Moderator  in  his  decision ;  first,  that  this  Committee  of 
Prosecution  is  properly  in  the  house  in  the  position  in 


171 


which  it  has  been  represented ;  and  second,  on  the  other 
decision  involving  the  point  raised,  first,  by  Dr.  Yan  Dyke, 
that  the  Committee  is  an  original  party.  We  will  divide 
the  question.  The  appeal  is  made  from  the  decision  that 
according  to  the  minutes  this  Committee  of  Prosecution  is 
properly  pursuing  its  function.  Those  in  favor  of  this - 

Dr.  George  W.  F.  Bircli :  Mr.  Moderator,  can  we,  the 
members  of  the  Committee,  vote  on  that? 

The  Moderator:  No,  sir;  those  in  favor  of  sustaining 
the  Moderator  will  say  aye ;  opposed,  no.  It  is  carried. 
Now,  upon  the  other  point,  those  in  favor  of  sustaining 
the  decision,  will  say  aye ;  opx>osed.  (The  Moderator  being 
in  doubt,  a  division  was  called  for.) 

Dr.  Brown :  Will  the  Moderator  state  the  point  upon 
which  the  appeal  is  taken.  The  point  is  as  to  whether 
this  Committee  is  an  original  party,  or  whether  indepen¬ 
dent  of  the  Presbytery,  or  with  the  Presbytery. 

Dr.  Birch:  That  is  not  the  point  of  order.  We  are 
properly  constituted  now. 

Dr.  Robinson :  I  called  the  brother  to  order,  that 
there  can  be  nothing  said  on  the  appeal. 

The  Moderator :  The  Moderator’s  decision  is  that  under 
this  rule  of  the  book  which  reads  as  follows :  ‘  ‘  When  33 

the  Prosecution  is  initiated  by  a  Judicatory,  the  Presby¬ 
terian  Church  in  the  United  States  of  America  shall  be 
the  prosecutor,  and  an  original  party.”  The  Moderator 
decides  that  this  is  so,  and  that  the  church  at  large  is 
represented  by  this  Prosecuting  Committee.  The  appeal 
is  from  that  decison. 

Dr.  Brown :  You  say  it  is  an  original  party? 

The  Moderator  :  No,  sir ;  I  say  the  church  is  an  origi¬ 
nal  party,  and  the  Committee  rex>resents  that  party. 

Dr.  Robinson:  And  is  independent  of  the  Presbytery. 

The  Moderator :  I  said  that  was  involved  in  the  word¬ 
ing  of  the  rule. 


172 


Dr.  Van  Dyke :  Let  tills  be  perfectly  clear. 

The  Moderator :  Dr.  Yan  Dyke  is  not  clear  about  the 
matter. 

Dr.  Van  Dyke:  I  rose  to  offer  a  motion.  You  said 
under  the  rule  No.  22  it  was  not  in  order,  because  the 
parties  must  now  be  heard.  I  said  I  proposed  to  submit 
to  your  decision,  and  inquired  whether  that  implied  that 
the  Committee  was  an  original  party,  and  you  said  it  did 
so  imply,  and  I  offered  a  protest,  and  I  withdrew  that  pro¬ 
test  in  order  that  an  appeal  might  be  taken  from  your 
decision.  It  is  a  matter  of  courtesy.  The  Committee  is 
to  be  heard  first.  The  decision  I  protest  against,  and  ap- 
peal  from,  is  that  the  Committee  is  an  original  party.  Is 
that  clear? 

The  Moderator  :  The  protest  can  only  be  offered  after  a 
decision  by  the  body.  The  question  is,  shall  the  decision 
of  the  Moderator  be  sustained.  Those  in  favor  of  sustain¬ 
ing  will  say  aye ;  opposed,  no.  (The  Moderator  being  in 
doubt,  a  division  is  called  for.)  Will  those  in  favor,  please 
rise,  and  stand  until  counted.  64  votes  in  favor.  Those 
opposed  will  please  rise.  64  to  57.  Great  minds  still  differ. 

Dr.  Yan  Dyke  gives  notice  of  his  protest  against  the 
decision. 

Dr.  Brown  gave  notice  of  a  complaint  against  the  de¬ 
cision  of  the  Judicatory,  and  Dr.  Briggs  gave  notice  of  an 
appeal. 

The  Moderator  :  You  join  in  the  protest. 

Dr.  Brown  :  No,  sir. 

The  Moderator :  We  shall  now  hear  from  the  Prose¬ 
cuting  Committee. 

Dr.  Brown :  Is  an  appeal  in  order  from  this  decision  of 
the  house?  If  it  is  in  order,  I  should  like  the  privilege  of 
an  appeal. 

The  Moderator :  No,  an  appeal  is  not  in  order.  You 
can  complain. 


173 


Prof.  J.  J.  Stevenson :  Mr.  Moderator,  as  this  Com¬ 
mittee  has  been  appointed  by  the  Presbytery  to  attend  to 
this  work,  it  is  therefore  devoid,  as  is  well  understood,  35 
of  personal  feeling  in  the  matter,  and  for  that  reason  no 
objection  was  interposed  to  the  Professor  pleading ;  for, 
under  the  guise  of  objections,  Prof.  Briggs  has  succeeded  in 
pleading  and  discussing  the  merits  of  the  case  almost 
throughout.  At  the  proper  time  the  Prosecuting  Com¬ 
mittee  will  be  ready  to  answer  nearly  all  the  objections 
which  Prof.  Briggs  has  entered.  They  are  not  objections 
to  be  entered  at  this  time ;  they  are  findings  against  the 
truthfulness  of  the  charges,  which  we  propose  to  prove  if 
we  may,  and  we  think  we  can.  Such  objections,  which 
make  up  the  mass  of  his  plea,  are  certainly  out  of  place  at 
this  stage  of  the  proceedings.  The  first  question  is  what 
is  a  charge.  The  charges  set  forth  is  the  alleged  offense, 
and  the  specifications  set  forth  the  facts  relied  upon  to 
sustain  the  charges.  The  objections  then  are,  first,  to  the 
form  of  the  charges  and  secondly,  to  the  form  of  the  spec¬ 
ifications.  The  strongest  objection  throughout  the  whole 
has  been  as  to  the  relevancy  of  the  specifications  to  the 
charges.  I  insist  that  that  is  a  matter  which  is  to  be 
proved  by  the  Prosecution  when  the  proper  time  comes. 

It  is  unnecessary  for  us  to  go  into  details.  The  statements 
made  that  the  texts  are  irrelevant  certainly  may  appear  so 
at  this  stage.  It  is  the  duty  of  the  Prosecution  to  give 
the  names  of  the  witnesses,  and  it  is  not  the  duty  of  the  36 
Prosecution  to  tell  the  Court  what  it  intends  to  prove  by 
those  witnesses.  Those  texts  may  seem  exceedingly 
irrelevant  now,  they  may  prove  to  be  exceedingly  relevant 
before  the  case  is  done ;  that  matter  will  be  settled  by  the 
Prosecution  in  its  proper  place.  That  is  not  an  objection 
which  is  effective  here.  Now  the  charge  sets  forth  an 
alleged  offense.  It  may  not  be  definite.  The  charge,  we 
maintain,  does  set  forth  the  alleged  offense.  In  the 


174 


Craighead  decision  which  has  been  quoted  so  much  there 
is  nothing  that  I  can  find,  after  very  careful  reading  of 
the  decision,  which  in  any  way  affects  the  matter  in  the 
case  here,  nothing  whatever.  Prof.  Briggs  has  not  in  any 
wise  objected  to  the  literal  republication  of  portions  of  his 
address.  There  may  be  something  more  there  than  is 

necessary - (A  Member  :  Louder.)  As  to  the  Craighead 

decision,  the  Prosecution  will  accept  that  to  its  fullest 
extent.  We  will  accept  the  Craighead  decision  in  every 
portion.  We  will  ask  that  not  one  portion,  but  every 
portion  of  it  be  taken  here  in  this  case.  That  has  been 
appealed  to  this  morning  in  several  cases.  The  one  point 
which  Prof.  Briggs  so  strongly  makes,  so  well,  is  this, 
that  it  is  not  right  to  charge  any  man  with  an  opinion 
which  he  disavows.  Prof.  Briggs  has  not  disavowed  those 
opinions  here.  He  has  made  those  statements  to-day, 
but  I  contend  that  those  statements  should  have  been 
made,  not  here  at  this  time,  but  at  a  previous  time,  and 
07  those  disavowals  made  here  to-day  do  not  avail.  The 
only  thing  which  Prof.  Briggs  could  do  was  to  simply  file 
objections  to  the  form ,  not  to  the  truthfulness,  and  not  to 
the  falsity  of  any  one  of  the  charges  or  any  one  of  the 
specifications.  His  plea  has  been  very  largely  based  on 
that  last.  Now  the  Craighead  decision,  to  which  he 
refers,  is  this  :  “  Here  it  will  be  important  to  remark  that 
a  man  cannot  fairly  be  convicted  of  heresy  for  using 
expressions  which  may  be  so  interpreted  as  to  involve 
heretical  doctrines.  If  they  may  also  admit  of  a  more 
favorable  construction,  because  no  one  can  tell  in  what 
sense  an  ambiguous  expression  is  used  but  the  speaker 
or  writer,  and  he  has  a  right  to  explain  himself  ;  and  in 
such  cases  candor  required  that  a  court  should  favor  the 
accused  by  putting  on  his  words  the  more  favorable  con¬ 
struction.”  That  is  when  the  trial  is  on;  that  is  when 
the  case  is  being  tried ;  that  is  a  matter  for  us  to  decide 


175 


on.  We  are  not  trying  the  truthfulness  of  the  charge. 
We  are  not  trying  whether  it  is  inferential  or  not.  We 
are  simply  testing  the  question  whether  the  charges  are  in 
form  or  not.  Of  course,  when  we  come  to  try  the  case  we 
shall  be  compelled  to  take  the  next  portion  of  that  into 
view.  ‘  ‘  Another  principle  is  that  no  man  can  rightly  be 
convicted  of  heresy  by  inference  or  implication ;  that  is, 
we  must  not  charge  an  accused  person  with  holding  those 
consequences  which  may  legitimately  flow  from  his  asser¬ 
tions.  Many  men  are  grossly  inconsistent  with  themselves, 
and  while  it  is  right,  in  argument,  to  overthrow  false 
opinions,  by  tracing  them  in  their  connections  and  con¬ 
sequences,  it  is  not  right  to  charge  any  man  with  an 
opinion  which  he  disavows.’ ’  Now  we  want  the  Court  to 
understand  that  this  Committee  will  stand  by  that  decision 
clean  through  when  the  time  comes ;  but  the  time  has  not 
yet  come  for  this  decision  to  be  quoted.  Now  the  ques¬ 
tion  is  whether  we  have  made  the  charges  specific  or 
relevant. 

A  Member :  Allow  me  to  say  that  some  of  the  elders 
are  going  out  without  permission  of  the  chair ;  why  not 
speak  to  them  and  tell  them  they  are  not  to  go  out  with 
out  permission?  Will  you  ask  them  to  remain? 

The  Moderator :  All  the  members  of  the  Presbytery 
will  remember  that  it  is  essential  that  they  should  be 
present  during  the  whole  of  the  proceedings.  The  roll 
will  be  called  at  the  reassembling. 

Dr.  David  G.  Wylie  :  It  is  now  about  twenty  minutes  to 
one  o’clock,  and  it  seems  to  me  that  Prof.  Stevenson 
might  continue  his  speech  at  the  next  session,  which  would 
give  us  time  to  adjourn. 

Prof.  Stevenson  :  I  can  finish  in  a  moment.  The  first 
objection  is  that  the  first  charge  is  too  general.  The  charge 
is  distinct.  It  is  specific,  and  that  charge  and  the  specifi¬ 
cations  must  stand  or  fall  together ;  they  are  one.  u  The 


176 


Presbyterian  Cliurcli  of  the  United  States  of  Ameiica 
charges  the  Rev.  Charles  A.  Briggs,  D.D.,  being  a  minis¬ 
ter  of  the  Presbyterian  Church,  and  a  member  of  the 
Presbytery  of  New  York,  with  teaching  doctrines  which 
conflict  irreconcilably  with,  and  are  contrary  to  the  caidi- 
nal  doctrine  taught  in  the  Holy  Scriptures  and  contained 
in  the  Standards  of  the  Presbyterian  Church,  that  the 
Scriptures  of  the  Old  and  New  Testaments  are  the  only 

40  infallible  rule  of  faith  and  practice.” 

That  is  the  charge.  The  specifications  under  that  simply 
indicate  the  facts.  Now  there  is  one  point  here  which 
must  be  conceded  at  once  to  Professor  Briggs.  In  ordei 
to  avoid  too  frequent  duplication  and  too  much  complex¬ 
ity,  the  Committee  did  not  prefix  this  second  paragraph  of 
the  charge  to  each  one  of  the  specifications.  There  is 
that  involved.  That  is  all  with  respect  to  this.  Now  with 
respect  to  the  first  charge ;  Professor  Briggs  has  stated 
that  he  never  taught  anything  contrary  to  this  thing ;  that 
the  charge  is  general  and  obscure  and  cannot  be  compre- 
hended,  that  the  charge  is  not  specific.  Those  are  his 
objections  to  the  charge.  It  is  unnecessary  for  me  to 
delay  on  those  objections,  because  you  have  all  read  these 
charges ;  every  one  has  read  them.  The  value  oi  the 
objections  can  be  recognized  by  every  one  in  the  room  just 
as  well  as  if  I  spoke  an  hour  upon  it ;  it  is,  therefore,  not 
necessary  to  delay  on  that  in  any  case.  The  only  thing  j. 
want  the  Court  to  remember  is  this,  that  by  far  the 
greater  proportion  of  the  objections  were  made,  not  to  the 
form  of  the  charges,  but  to  the  matter  of  the  cnaiges  and 
specifications ;  the  objections  were  to  the  truthfulness  of 
the  charges  and  specifications,  'which  are  matters  not  to  be 
discussed  here  to-day  in  this  connection.  The  only  ques¬ 
tion  to  be  determined  is,  whether  the  charges  and  specifi- 
41  cations  are  in  the  form  required  by  the  book.  The  Com¬ 
mittee  maintained  they  are  in  every  respect  in  accord  with 


177 


the  book,  the  book  requiring  that  4  £  The  charge  shall  set 
forth  the  alleged  offense  and  the  specifications  shall  set 
forth  the  facts  relied  upon  to  sustain  the  charge.  Each 
specification  shall  declare,  as  far  as  possible,  the  time, 
place  and  circumstances.”  The  only  informality  in  the 
whole  matter  is  the  fact  that  the  second  paragraph  of 
Charge  I.  was  not  prefixed  to  each  one  of  the  specifica¬ 
tions.  Had  that  been  done  the  formality  would  have  been 
made  complete.  As  for  the  specification  under  the  second 
Charge,  I  am  certain  that  it  is  very  difficult  to  understand 
how  any  objection  can  be  taken  to  that  specification.  It 
does  not  state  any  fact.  No.  It  does  state  time,  jfface 
and  circumstances  unquestionably,  so  there  can  be  no  objec¬ 
tions  whatever  taken  to  that  one.  The  only  possible  room 
for  objection  is  this  one  informality,  which  can  be  amended 
without  the  slightest  possible  difficulty  by  simply  trans¬ 
ferring  the  second  portion  of  Charge  I.  with  the  alteration 
of  one  or  two  words,  prefixing  it  to  each  one  of  the 
specifications. 

A  motion  was  made  to  call  the  roll  and  adjourn. 

The  Moderator  :  We  do  not  have  to  call  the  roll.  We 
have  fifteen  minutes  before  one  o’clock.  Do  the  Commit¬ 
tee  desire  to  be  heard  further  f  (The  Moderator  here 
waited  some  moments  for  the  Committee  to  respond.) 

Dr.  Van  Dyke  :  Mr.  Moderator - 

Dr.  Birch  (For  the  Committee) ;  We  have  nothing  fur¬ 
ther  at  present. 

Dr.  Van  Dyke :  I  desire  to  offer  a  motion,  sir,  if  you 
will  entertain  it.  I  move  that,  in  the  exercise  of  the 
authority  permitted  to  us  by  the  Book  of  Discipline,  Sec¬ 
tion  22,  this  Presbytery  do  now  dismiss. 

Dr.  Robinson  :  I  call  the  brother  to  order.  I  move  to 
adjourn  and  that  the  roll  be  called. 

The  Moderator :  I  stated  we  did  not  need  to  call  the 
roll  now. 


42 


178 


Dr.  Robinson  :  I  thought  it  was  to  be  called  at  the  end 
of  session. 

The  Moderator  :  No,  sir.  Allow  the  Moderator  to  state : 
We  have  already  fixed  the  time  for  adjournment  on  taking 
recess,  which  is  one  o’clock,  and  we  have  fifteen  minutes 
until  that  time  now,  and  Dr.  Van  Dyke  has  the  floor. 

Dr.  Robinson  :  I  made  the  motion  to  adjourn  and  it  was 

seconded. 

The  Moderator :  It  was  made  but  not  seconded,  I 
understand. 

Dr.  Van  Dyhe  :  I  move,  in  the  exercise  of  our  author¬ 
ity,  according  to  the  Book  of  Discipline,  Section  22,  and 
in  view  of  the  facts  that  have  come  before  us  this  day,  that 
this  Presbytery  do  now  dismiss  this  case  \  and  that  the 
Committee  appointed  to  arrange  and  prepare  the  papers  be 
discharged,  with  the  thanks  of  the  Presbytery  for  the  dili¬ 
gence  with  which  they  have  done  their  duty. 

The  Moderator :  It  is  moved  and  seconded,  in  view  of 
what  we  have  heard,  that  the  case  be  dismissed. 

Prof.  Stevenson :  The  prosecution  asks  you  to  declare 

that  motion  out  of  order. 

Dr.  Van  Dyhe  :  I  will  state  it  again,  and  if  you  declare 
it  out  of  order  we  will  have  to  take  the  necessary  course. 

<  <  Resolved,  that  in  the  exercise  of  the  authority  committed 
to  us  by  the  Book  of  Discipline,  Section  22,  of  this  Pres¬ 
bytery,  and  in  view  of  the  facts  which  have  been  this  day 
presented  to  us,  this  Presbytery  do  now  dismiss  this  case ; 
and  that  the  Committee  appointed  to  arrange  and  prepare 
the  papers  be  discharged,  with  the  thanks  of  the  Presby¬ 
tery  for  the  diligence  with  which  they  have  performed 
their  duty. 5  5  I  think  probably  that  by  this  time  there  are 
several  who  can  repeat  that  just  as  I  stated  it. 

(A  Member  calls  for  the  reading  of  the  Section.) 

Prof.  Stevenson :  According  to  Section  22,  one  thing  yet 
remains  to  be  done.  “  The  Judicatory  upon  the  tiling  of 


179 


such  objections  shall,  or  on  its  own  motion  may  determine 
all  such  preliminary  objections,  and  may  dismiss  the  case, 
or  permit,  in  the  furtherance  of  justice,  amendments  to  44 
the  specifications  or  charges,”  and  so  on.  That  is  in  Sec¬ 
tion  22,  page  327. 

Dr.  Van  Dyke :  The  Judicatory  there  “  Shall,  or  on  its 
own  motion  may,” — that  is  to  say,  without  motion  from 
either  party  of  the  case,— “may  determine  all  such  prelimi¬ 
nary  objections,  and  may  dismiss  the  case.”  There  is  no 
reason  why  the  objections  should  be  dismissed  before  the 
case  is  dismissed. 

Dr  of.  Stevenson:  “  Shall  determine.” 

The  Moderator  :  It  would  be  better  to  say  “  Sustain 
the  objections  and  dismiss  the  case.” 

Dr.  Van  Dyke  :  I  do  not  want  to  put  the  motion  in  that 
way,  because  that  involves  a  long  paper.  Some  may  un¬ 
derstand  the  case  and  some  would  not.  What  we  want  to 
do  is,  to  get  rid  of  this  thing  as  fast  as  we  can. 

The  Moderator  :  The  motion,  the  Moderator  decides,  is 
perfectly  in  order. 

Prof.  Stevenson  :  Then  I  wish  to  make  objections  to  the 
last  portion  of  the  motion  in  reference  to  the  discharge  of 
this  Committee.  I  take  the  position  that  this  Presbytery 
cannot  discharge  this  Committee;  that  this  Presbytery 
has  no  authority  over  this  Committee,  except  to  see  to  it 
that  it  abides  closely  by  the  Book,  in  the  whole  of  these 
proceedings. 

Dr .  Van  Dyke :  That  latter  portion  was  put  on  for  the  45 
sake  of  courtesy.  If  the  Committee  would  prefer  I  would 
divide  the  motion  and  simply  put  it  in  two  parts,  that  the 
case  be  dismissed,  and  then  afterwards  we  can  discuss 
whether  or  not  we  shall  thank  the  Committee  for  its  dili¬ 
gence. 

Prof.  Stevenson :  No  one  appreciates  the  delightful  wit 
of  our  brother  better  than  I  do ;  but  I  was  not  talking  to 


180 


the  question  of  thanks,  I  was  talking  to  the  question  of 
discharge. 

Dr.  Robinson :  Isn’t  this  out  of  order?  That  resolution 
is  not  in  writing.  I  am  not  going  to  follow  a  resolution 
which  Brother  Yan  Dyke  changes.  The  first  rule  is  that 
it  shall  be  reduced  to  writing  before  it  is  submitted,  and 
then  we  know  what  we  are  discussing.  This  carries  a 
whole  world  in  it  and  should  be  written  and  not  offered 
extemporaneously ;  and  should  be  presented  to  the  clerk 

in  writing  so  the  clerk  can  read  it. 

Prof.  Stevenson :  If  Dr.  Yan  Dyke  will  take  off  the  last 

clause,  then  I  have  nothing  to  say. 

Dr.  Van  DyJce :  I  will  divide  the  motion,  and  move 

simply  to  dismiss  the  case. 

The  Moderator :  The  clerk  willnow  read  the  resolution. 

Mr.  Hoadley  (Permanent  Clerk) :  “  Resolved,  that  the 
Presbytery,  in  the  exercise  of  the  discretion  conferred  upon 
it  by  the  Book  of  Discipline,  and  in  view  of  the  facts  which 
have  been  presented  to  us,  do  now  dismiss  the  case.” 

Dr.  Van  Dyke:  I  would  like  to  speak  on  that  question. 

The  Moderator :  We  have  but  five  minutes  left. 

Dr.  Philip  Schaff :  I  move  this  motion  be  made  a 
special  order  of  debate  for  this  afternoon. 

Dr.  S.  D.  Alexander :  I  move  this  motion  be  laid  on  the 
table.  (The  motion  was  seconded  and  lost.) 

A  division  was  called  for. 

Dr.  Van  Dyke :  Mr.  Moderator,  I  should  like  to  make 
the  point  of  order,  that  I  had  the  floor  at  the  time  this 
motion  was  presented,  and  I  was  waiting  for  you  to  decide 
whether  I  should  go  on  or  not.  I  do  not  wish  to  force  it 
on  the  Presbytery. 

The  Moderator :  Dr.  Yan  Dyke  is  right.  I  think  it 
would  be  more  for  the  convenience  of  the  Presbytery  if  we 
considered  the  motion  to  adjourn. 

The  Moderator :  Dr.  Yan  Dyke  would  like  a  little  more 


181 


time,  and  a  motion  will  be  considered  to  take  a  recess 
until  2  o’clock.  (A  motion  to  do  this  was  then  put  and 
carried.)  The  roll  will  be  called  immediately  after  recess, 
so  please  be  promptly  in  attendance.  47 

(After  recess.) 

The  Moderator :  The  Presbytery  will  come  to  order, 
remembering  that  we  are  in  the  posture  of  a  court.  The 
roll  will  now  be  called. 

Mr.  Hoadley :  Mr.  Moderator,  will  you  allow  me  to 
move  that  two  names  be  added  to  the  roll  of  members, 
who  were  here  one  minute  after  the  roll  was  called ;  it  will 
require  the  unanimous  vote  of  the  body  to  allow  their 
names  to  appear.  Elder  Edward  W.  Thompson,  of  the 
Seventh  Church,  and  Pev.  William  M.  Paxton.  I  move 
these  names  be  added  to  the  list. 

Dr.  Brown :  I  make  no  objection,  provided  there  is  the 
same  opportunity  given  to  others  to  be  entered. 

Pev.  Vincent  Pisek  and  Pev.  Horace  G-.  Miller  were  also 
named  as  being  present. 

The  Moderator :  Unless  there  is  objection,  there  is  con¬ 
sent  of  all  concerned.  Some  of  these  brethren  came  in 
during  the  presentation  of  Dr.  Briggs’s  objections,  and 
some  have  just  come  in  now.  Mr.  Miller  was  present  at 
the  reading  of  the  objection. 

Mr.  Hoadley :  I  would  ask  is  F.  M.  Pobinson  in  the 
house? 

The  Moderator :  Mr.  F.  M.  Pobinson,  is  he  present? 

A  Member :  He  does  not  seem  to  be  present.  48 

Mr.  Hoadley  :  Is  Edward  W.  Thompson  present?  (No 
one  answered.) 

The  Moderator :  Those  in  favor  of  enrolling  these 
gentlemen  will  say  aye,  opposed  no.  It  is  carried.  The 
roll  will  now  be  called. 


182 


The  roll  was  called,  and  the  following  members  of  the 
Presbytery  answered  present : 

Geo.  Alexander,  Andrew  C.  Armstrong,  Jr.,  A.  P. 
Atterbury,  W.  W.  Atterbury,  Louis  W.  Barney,  William 
H.  Beach,  George  W.  F.  Birch,  Nicholas  Bjerring,  John 
C.  Bliss,  Robert  R.  Booth,  Thomas  S.  Bradner,  Charles  A. 
Briggs,  Francis  Brown,  William  T.  Carr,  James  Chambeis, 
Edward  L.  Clark,  Nathaniel  W.  Conkling,  John  B.  Dev¬ 
ins, -Ira  S.  Dodd,  D.  Stuart  Dodge,  Conrad  Doench, 
Thomas  Douglas,  John  H.  Edwards,  Henry  B.  Elliot, 
William  T.  Elsing,  Henry  M.  Field,  Arthur  Folsom,  Jesse 
F.  Forbes,  Herbert  Ford,  Charles  R.  Gillett,  Henri  L. 
Grandlienard,  John  Hall,  A.  Woodruff  Halsey,  William 
R.  Harshaw,  Thomas  S.  Hastings,  Charles  E.  Herring, 
Spencer  L.  Hillier,  Edward  W.  Hitchcock,  James  H. 
Hoadley,  Samuel  M.  Jackson,  Augustus  D.  L.  Jewett, 
Joseph  R.  Kerr,  Albert  B.  King,  Bartolomew  Krusi, 
Joseph  P.  Lestrade,  John  C.  Lowrie,  Daniel  E.  Lorenz, 
William  M.  Martin,  William  J.  McDowell,  Francis  H. 
Marling,  James  H.  Mcllvaine,  Alexander  H.  McKinney, 
Alexander  McLean,  George  J.  Mingins,  James  C.  Night¬ 
ingale,  Horace  G.  Miller,  George  Nixon,  D.  H.  Overton, 
49  Charles  H.  Parkhurst,  Levi  H.  Parsons,  John  R.  Paxton, 
William  M.  Paxton,  Edward  P.  Payson,  George  S.  Pay- 
son,  Vincent  Pisek,  George  L.  Prentiss,  Wendell  Prime, 
Hugh  Pritchard,  James  S.  Ramsay,  Charles  S.  Robinson, 
Stealy  B.  Rossiter,  Robert  F.  Sample,  Joseph  Sanderson, 
Joseph  A.  Saxton,  Philip  Schaff,  Adolphus  F.  Schauffler, 
James  E.  Sentz,  J.  Balcom  Shaw,  George  L.  Shearer, 
William  G.  T.  Shedd,  Andrew  Shiland,  Wilton  M.  Smith, 
John  M.  Stevenson,  Charles  A.  Stoddard,  J.  Ford  Sutton, 
Alexander  W.  Sproull,  George  L.  Spining,  Charles  L. 
Thompson,  John  J.  Thompson,  Henry  Van  Dyke,  Marvin 
R.  Vincent,  Frederick  E.  Voegelin,  A.  L.  R.  Waite,  Erskine 


183 


N.  White,  John  T.  Wilds,  David  G.  Wylie,  W.  D. 
Buchanan,  Frank  F.  Ellin  wood. 

The  Moderator  :  Are  there  any  others  !  (No  response). 

Mr.  Hoadley  :  I  move  yon  that  Mr.  Webster  and  Mr. 
McEwen,  having  been  called  away  by  special  duty  be 
excused.  (Motion  seconded  and  carried). 

Dr.  Shearer :  The  Committee  of  course  will  have  to 
consent  to  that  motion. 

(Dr.  Briggs  and  the  Committee  both  stated  that  they 
had  no  objections.) 

The  roll  of  the  Elders  was  then  called,  and  the  following 
were  present : 

M.  M.  Brown,  George  N.  Jaques,  John  C.  Tucker, 
William  A.  Richmond,  Andrew  Robinson,  Thomas  S. 
Strong,  David  T.  Peek,  Robert  Beggs,  Richard  H.  Bull,  50 
A.  Zincke,  Frederick  Blume,  John  Stewart,  Samuel  Reeve, 
Francis  Rogers,  J.  Moorhead,  Theron  G.  Strong,  Charles 
H.  Woodbury,  Henry  Bruning,  M.  E.  Fox,  I.  M.  Dyck- 
man,  Thomas  Anderson,  Henry  Q.  Hawley,  Sidney  Whitte- 
more,  George  C.  Lay,  Cleveland  H.  Dodge,  William  M. 
Onderdonk,  H.  B.  Caithness,  Edward  W.  Thompson, 
William  A.  Wheelock,  William  Mitchell,  William  R. 
Worrall,  Robert  Gentle,  C.  P.  Leggett,  J.  P.  Lindsay. 

The  Moderator  :  Are  there  any  other  names  to  be  added 
to  the  roll  of  those  present?  The  Moderator  would 
announce  the  Committee  to  answer  the  protest  of  Dr.  Van 
Dyke.  The  names  are  Rev.  James  S.  Ramsay,  Rev. 
Charles  A.  Stoddard,  and  Elder  Robert  Beggs.  The  ques¬ 
tion  now  before  us  is  on  the  adoption  of  the  motion  to  dis¬ 
miss  the  case  in  view  of  the  facts  or  statements  that  have 
been  presented  here  this  morning.  Dr.  Van  Dyke  has  the 
floor.  The  resolution  will  be  read. 

The  resolution  was  read,  as  follows : 

“  Resolved,  that  the  Presbytery,  in  the  exercise  of  the 
discretion  conferred  upon  it  by  the  Book  of  Discipline, 


184 


&nd.  in  view  of  the  facts  which  have  been  presented  to  us, 
do  now  dismiss  the  case.” 

51  Remarks  by  Dr.  Henry  Van  Dyke. 

Mr.  Moderator  :  That  was  a  fair  open  motion,  made 
for  the  purpose  that  must  appear  obvious  to  everybody. 
It  is  not  made  in  the  interest  of  Dr.  Briggs,  who  has  said 
upon  the  floor  of  this  Presbytery  that  he  wished  a  trial. 
It  is  made  in  the  interest  of  all  of  us,  elders  and  ministers, 
who  have  solemnly  sworn  to  study  the  interest  of  peace, 
unity  and  purity  of  the  Church.  I  have  asked  myself 
honestly  and  at  the  bar  of  conscience,  and  I  would  ask 
you,  do  you  think  the  peace,  unity  and  purity  of  the 
Church  will  be  promoted  by  this  Presbytery  pushing  for¬ 
ward  this  heresy  trial  to  the  bitter  end?  We  are  not  to  con¬ 
sider  the  question  whether  the  trial  is  going  on  or  not. 
We  are  to  consider  principally  our  responsibility  in 
regard  to  it,  as  we  consider  those  great  interests  which  we 
have  all  sworn  to  study  and  to  observe.  The  theory  has 
been  advanced,  and  we  ought  to  look  at  if,  that  we  have 
no  alternative— that  this  trial  once  begun  must  go  on  to 
the  bitter  end.  It  reminds  me  of  a  story  my  dear  father 
used  to  tell  me  about  the  man  with  a  steam  leg.  It  was  a 
very  ingenious  leg,  and  a  very  strong  leg,  but  the  mischief 
of  it  was  that  when  you  got  it  started  in  any  direction  it 
was  bound  to  carry  you  straight  along,  whether  it  carried 
you  against  a  wall  or  into  the  water.  How  the  Committee 
seems  to  think  we  have  got  on  a  steam  leg.  Our  Book  of 

52  Discipline  provides  us  with  the  authority  to  turn  off  the 
steam  by  dismissing  the  case.  It  says  very  clearly  in  the 
Book  that  it  is  within  the  province  of  the  Presbytery  to 
dismiss  the  case  at  this  point.  The  question  is  whether 
there  are  reasons  for  so  doing. 

First  of  all,  is  it  for  the  interest  of  peace  and  unity  and 


185 


purity  in  tlie  Church  to  try  a  man  for  his  ecclesiastical  life 
under  circumstances  which  are  calculated  to  exert  a  pre¬ 
judice  against  him?  It  is  not  necessary  to  allude  to  all 
these  circumstances  to-day — confusions  in  the  atmosphere 
that  have  enveloped  this  matter  from  the  very  first; 
turbulent  voices  from  ways  which  have  been  indicated 
to-day.  It  is  not  necessary  for  us  to  state  these  circum¬ 
stances.  Here  is  the  preamble,  which  contains  a  serious 
and  painful  allegation,  which  it  is  not  even  proposed  to 
prove.  Hr.  Briggs  meets  these  things  like  a  man.  He 
comes  here  and  says,  ‘  6  So  far  as  I  know  my  own  heart, 
those  things  are  not  true ;  I  have  not  taught  any  danger¬ 
ous  errors ;  I  have  not  had  any  conscious  intentions  of 
disturbing  the  peace  of  the  Church.” 

He  goes  on  and  says :  u  If  I  have  disturbed  it,  if  I  have 
given  pain  and  grief  to  my  brethren,  I  am  sorry,  with  all 
my  heart.”  I  say  that  it  is  a  manly,  straightforward 
avowal.  Is  it  fair;  is  it  just;  is  it  Christian  for  us,  in  the 
face  of  an  avowal  like  that,  to  go  on  with  a  trial  which 
begins  with  an  attack  against  a  minister’s  honor  and 
character  which  he  has  no  chance  to  meet,  and  which  he  53 
does  not  even  propose  to  refute?  That  is  the  question. 

The  second  question  is  this :  Is  it  for  the  peace  and 
unity  and  purity  of  the  Church  to  go  on  with  a  trial  under 
charges  and  specifications  which  do  not  conform  to  the  law 
as  laid  down  in  our  Book  of  Discipline?  Now  the  objec¬ 
tions  that  have  been  presented  to  us  this  morning  are  very 
serious.  It  will  not  do  to  make  light  of  them.  The  Book 
says  a  specific  offence  shall  be  charged,  and  one  offence, 
and  the  charges  preferred  are  not  specific.  The  Book 
says  that  our  policy  is  that  it  shall  be  shown  that 
the  offence  was  against  a  cardinal  doctrine.  The  charge 
does  not  state  that  the  offence  is  against  a  cardinal 
doctrine,  and  we  cannot  throw  those  objections  aside. 

It  is  no  reflection  on  the  Committee  to  say  this.  The 


186 


Committee  is  the  very  best  that  could  have  been  ap¬ 
pointed  for  this  purpose  in  the  Presbytery  of  New 
York.  They  have  had  in  their  number  the  benefit  of  as 
good  legal  advice  as  can  be  found  at  the  Bar  of  the  United 
States,  and  they  have  sought  the  best  theological  advice 
that  could  be  had  at  all  times.  Those  are  simply  facts ; 
and  if  all  that  being  true,  they  cannot  bring  in  anything 
stronger  or  clearer  or  better  in  fact  and  legal  effect  than 
those  charges  and  specifications,  what  follows?  Why, 
simply  this,  not  that  they  are  to  blame,  but  that  the  case 
is  a  weak  one. 

We  have  arrived  at  the  position  which  is  provided  for 
54  in  our  Book  of  Discipline,  Section  7.  We  have  arrived 
at  one  of  those  crises  in  which  it  is  better  to  wait  until 
God  in  his  righteous  providence  shall  give  further  light, 
rather  than  by  unavailing  prosecution  to  weaken  the 
force  of  it. 

Then  the  third  question  is  this :  Is  it  for  the  interest  of 
the  peace  and  unity  and  purity  in  our  Church  to  proceed 
to  try  a  man  for  his  life  who  has  just  made  the  professions 
of  fundamental  belief  that  has  been  made  in  the  course  of 
this  paper  that  has  been  read  here  to-day?  They  could 
not  help  coming  in,  because  they  were  in  the  heart  of  the 
man  that  made  them ;  they  could  not  help  being  presented 
here,  because  they  are  his  unalterable  and  unshaken  belief. 
There  is  no  hesitation.  There  was  a  little  boy  in  Sunday 
School  who  was  asked  why  the  lions  did  not  eat  Daniel, 
and  he  said  because  they  did  not  know  how  good  he  was. 
That  was  not  an  orthodox  interpretation.  It  is  because 
they  did  not  know  how  good  he  was ;  and  we  know  how 
good  Dr.  Briggs  is.  Let  us  not  injure  him.  He  has 
clearly  and  frankly  disavowed  the  doctrine  of  purgatory 
and  probation  after  death,  and  all  kindred  errors.  He 
has  declared  his  faith  that  the  redeemed  enter  the  future 
life  guiltless  and  sinless.  He  has  declared  his  faith  that 


187 


predictive  prophecy  has  been,  is  being  and  will  be  fulfilled. 

He  has  rejected  the  infallibility  of  the  Church  and  Reason 
as  sources  of  authority.  He  has  affirmed  his  belief  in  the 
Divine  inspiration  of  all  the  Holy  Scriptures,  which  taken  55 
together  make  up  the  only  infallible  rule  of  faith  and 
practice,  and  to  which  he  submits  and  apx^eals  as  the  final 
authority  to  judge  in  all  matters  of  conscience.  Now 
those  are  solid  and  substantial  confessions  of  faith. 

Are  we  to  look  upon  the  man  who  has  made  them  in  our 
presence  as  an  enemy  who  must  be  put  on  trial  for  his 
life?  Is  that  in  accordance  with  that  spirit  of  charity 
which  thinketh  no  evil?  Will  it  tend  to  unify  and  to 
purify  our  Church  to  take  a  man  who  holds  those  beliefs, 
and  put  him  on  trial  for  his  ecclesiastical  life  ?  A  heresy  trial 
is  a  great  evil.  The  history  of  the  Church  proves  it.  It  begets 
distractions,  suspicions,  jealousies  and  strife.  I  admit  that 
there  are  cases  where  it  is  a  necessary  evil,  but  to  embrace 
the  evil  without  a  necessity  is  a  sin  against  our  brother, 
against  the  Church  and  against  its  work.  Unless  we  can 
lay  our  hands  on  our  hearts  and  say  positively  that  we 
believe  that  the  real  welfare  of  the  Church  in  the  spiritual 
work  of  the  ministry  and  work  in  this  city  of  New  York, 
is  going  to  be  prospered — we  should  not  hesitate  a  moment 
in  this  matter.  Here  is  a  big  city  that  wants  the  bread  of 
plain  religion.  Do  not  let  us  give  it  instead  the  stone  of 
controversy  on  the  question  of  heresy. 

And  there  is  one  more  question  that  ought  to  be  asked  56 
squarely,  and  that  is,  can  we  consent  to  dismiss  this  case 
here  and  now?  There  are  some  of  us  anxious  not  to  be 
misunderstood  in  this  matter.  For  my  own  part,  I  have 
dismissed  that  anxiety  from  my  heart.  I  would  rather  be 
misunderstood  and  condemned  a  thousand  times  than 
hesitate  to  do  what  is  right,  what  my  conscience  tells  me  is 
fair  and  just  and  loving.  But  honestly,  there  is  no  ques¬ 
tion  of  misunderstanding.  It  is  as  clear  as  light  that  the 


188 


Divine  inspiration  and  the  supreme  authority  of  all  the 
Holy  Scriptures  is  not  called  in  question  to-day.  That  is 
onr  belief.  The  accused  joins  with  us  in  that  confession 
of  faith ;  and  no  man,  unless  he  is  stupid  or  malicious,  can 
say  that  if  this  Presbytery  dismisses  this  case  it  will 
swerve  from  its  allegiance  to  the  Holy  Bible.  Well,  we 
do  not  all  agree  with  Dr.  Briggs’  views,  still  less  with  the 
manner  in  which  he  expresses  them.  Take  for  instance 
that  matter  of  progressive  sanctification  after  death.  We 
do  not  accept  that  doctrine;  I  do  not  for  one.  I  have 
never  been  dead  and  never  had  any  chance  to  investigate ; 
and  my  principal  interest  is  in  practical  sanctification  be¬ 
fore  death.  We  want  to  teach  men  how  to  be  good  in  this 
world,  and  we  believe  God  will  take  care  of  them  in  the 
next  world;  and  when  a  man  comes  and  says,  “  I  believe 
the  souls  of  the  redeemed  enter  the  future  life  without 
sin,”  we  are  not  willing  to  say  that  that  man  should  be 
passed  into  the  outer  darkness,  that  he  is  not  a  good 
57  Christian  and  fit  for  us  to  have  fellowshfp  with.  Take 
these  questions  in  regard  to  the  Book  of  the  Pentateuch 
and  Isaiah.  We  do  not  accept  them.  They  seem  to  some 
of  us,  among  whom  I  am  one,  something  like  the  vagaries 
that  the  poems  of  Homer  were  written  by  another  member 
of  the  same  family ;  and  the  theory  of  Ignatius  Donnelly 
that  Shakespeare  was  written  by  Bacon ;  but  when  a  man 
comes  to  us  and  says,  “  I  believe  in  the  Pentateuch,  and 
that  the  whole  prophesy  of  Isaiah  was  part  of  the  inspired 
Word  of  God,  and  to  be  received  as  a  portion  of  our  in¬ 
fallible  rule  of  faith  and  practice,  ’  ’  we  are  not  going  to  say, 
“  You  shall  not  investigate  the  date  and  authorship  of 
these  books.”  We  do  not  say  that  in  regard  to  the 
Epistle  of  Hebrews,  and  why  should  we  say  that  in  regard 
to  the  books  of  the  Pentateuch?  Not  only  that,  we  put  a 
ban  on  scholarship ;  and  scholarship  that  is  not  free  is  not 
worthy  the  name.  Free  scholarship — here  is  the  root  of 


189 


the  question.  Is  it  essential  to  Protestant  Christianity? 
The  Bible  has  always  vindicated  itself  in  rational  free¬ 
dom.  Let  us  court  the  light.  Let  us  hear  the  discus¬ 
sions,  and  let  us  have  the  facts,  and  the  Bible  will  come 
out,  as  it  has  a  thousand  times,  clear  and  strong.  We 
say  let  truth  guide  us.  Who  ever  knew  it  to  be  put  to 
the  worse  in  open  conference?  You  will  pardon  me  if  I 
say — and  you  will  set  it  down  to  filial  reverence — you  will 
pardon  me,  if  I  say,  I  stand  on  the  ground  that  my  be¬ 
loved  father  stood  on  when  he  declared  for  liberty  and 
orthodoxy.  Liberty  first.  And  why?  Because  without 
liberty  there  is  no  true  orthodoxy.  A  man  cannot  be 
taught  to  believe  and  think  right  without  liberty.  Ortho¬ 
doxy  must  flourish  in  an  air  of  freedom ;  and  the  best  way 
to  defend  the  Bible  is  in  the  open  air,  and  in  the  light  of 
facts ;  and  that  is  the  way  I  want  to  see  it  defended.  I 
want  to  see  it  defended  by  scholars  in  the  open  air.  That 
is  the  position  of  a  conservative.  You  ask,  “  Why,  is  not 
that  a  modern  view,  and  a  dangerous  view  to  take  of  these 
things  5 5  ? 

Let  me  quote,  in  conclusion,  the  words  of  Rev.  Gardiner 
Spring,  uttered  to  our  Church  in  the  year  1886,  when  the 
Church  was  hastening  through  a  series  of  heresy  trials  to 
a  cruel  and  bitter  disruption:  “  Error  has  never  been 
eradicated  from  the  Church  by  the  severe  process  of  adju¬ 
dication.  Where  errors  are  not  essential  in  their  char¬ 
acter,  it  appears  to  the  Presbytery  that  the  most  effectual 
means  of  opposing  their  progress  is  the  diffusion  of  light 
and  the  exercise  of  love.  A  wise  and  powerful  moral  in¬ 
fluence  is  more  to  be  relied  upon  in  this  warfare  than  the 
exterminating  influence  of  ecclesiastical  power.  Let  the 
Church  go  forth  unmanacled  to  the  great  work  of  convert¬ 
ing  the  world ;  let  Churches  and  ministers  who  have  never 
come  under  the  common  bond  which  unites  the  Presby¬ 
teries  of  this  General  Assembly  be  no  longer  recognized  as 


58 


190 


59  having  a  place  in  her  judicatories ;  let  men  valiant  for  the 
truth  call  the  advocates  of  error  into  the  field  of  calm  and 
dispassionate  investigation,  and  we  may  yet  be  a  holy  and 
happy  people.  In  this  day  of  darkness  and  rebuke  God 
is  calling  on  us  to  humble  ourselves  before  Him  and  to  seek 
His  direction  in  all  that  may  conduce  to  purity  and  peace 
rather  than  to  chilling  alienation  and  final  rupture.’ ’ 

Those  are  words  that  I  should  not  dare  to  use,  thinking 
for  myself.  They  come  to  us  from  the  grave,  and  they 
are  wise  words ;  and  I  pray  to  God  this  Presbytery  may 
have  grace  to  follow  that  counsel  and  dismiss  this  case. 


Remarks  by  Mr.  McCook. 

“  Mr.  Moderator  and  brethren,  I  shall  not  detain  you  long 
by  what  I  wish  to  say  upon  this  subject,  but  you  have  now 
come  in  the  proceedings — the  judicial  proceedings  in  which 
this  Presbytery  has  been  engaged — to  a  point  wdiich  is  the 
crisis.  A  Committee  has  been  appointed,  and  that  Com¬ 
mittee,  which  has  been  praised  far  beyond  its  deserts  by 
my  brother,  Hr.  Van  Dyke,  have  earnestly  and  honestly 
endeavored  to  do  their  duty  as  prescribed  by  the  Stand¬ 
ards  of  the  Presbyterian  Church.  When  the  appeal  is 
made  that  Hr.  Yan  Hyke  has  now  made  to  us,  it  is  on  the 
assumption  that  there  should  be  no  Book  of  Hiscipline  in 
the  Constitution  of  the  Presbyterian  Church.  Would  to 
God  that  there  was  no  occasion  for  such  a  thing,  but  as 
long  as  men  are  men  and  human,  the  necessity  for  disci¬ 
pline  must  exist.  I  shall  not  trouble  you  to  read  the  First 
Chapter  of  the  Book  of  Hiscipline,  with  which,  I  have  no 
doubt,  you  are  familiar,  wherein  it  states  the  necessity  for 
discipline ;  they  are  very  real ;  they  are  very  earnest,  and 
they  all  tend  to  produce  the  result  that  my  brother,  Hr. 
Yan  Hyke,  so  much  wishes — the  peace  and  purity  of  our 
beloved  Church.  Hiscipline  when  once  invoked  is  usually 


191 


the  result  of  acts  by  some  one  else  than  the  Church ;  dis¬ 
cipline  is  based  upon  action  by  some  one.  Discipline, 
when  necessary,  should  as  far  as  possible — and  I  don’t 
hesitate  to  say  that  our  Committee,  so  far  as  it  has  been 
able  to  do  so,  has  absolutely  kept  out  the  personal  element  61 
in  the  consideration  of  this  business,  and  we  have  endeav¬ 
ored  not  to  say  an  unnecessary  word,  or  a  word  that  was 
not  kind,  or  a  word  that  was  inconsiderate,  or  a  word  that 
was  unjust,  in  bringing  these  charges  which  have  been 
submitted  to  the  Presbytery,  and  which  have  been  ordered 
by  the  Presbytery  to  be  placed  in  the  hands  of  the  accused. 

We  have  tried  to  conform  to  those  rules  Dr.  Van  Dyke 
has  suggested,  and  to  keep  as  nearly  as  possible  within 
the  rights  and  liberty  of  our  beloved  Church  and  every 
member  of  it ;  but  I  must  claim  in  behalf  of  the  Presby¬ 
terian  Church  some  liberty,  and  that  its  liberty  to  judge 
upon  these  matters  within  the  lines  of  its  Book  of  Disci¬ 
pline  should  be  effective,  should  be  operative,  and  that 
that  great  Church,  when  so  acting,  should  always  act  with 
all  the  powers  that  go  with  it,  with  the  tenderest  con¬ 
sideration  for  the  rights  of  every  member  of  that  great 
Church. 

Now,  with  reference  to  the  present  situation.  This 
Presbytery  has  determined  the  status  of  the  judicial  pro¬ 
ceedings  up  to  this  time,  so  I  do  not  need  to  take  your 
time  by  discussing  that  further ;  but  we  come  to  the  point 
where  we  must  determine  what  we  shall  do,  when  we  reach, 
under  the  provision  of  the  twenty-second  Section  of  the 
book,  the  place  where  the  Presbytery  may  dismiss  the 
case,  if,  in  their  judgment,  they  see  fit  to  do  so.  It  is  not 
quite  as  Dr.  Van  Dyke  stated,  but  I  shall  not  quote  him 
incorrectly,  that  they  can  dismiss  the  case  for  any  reason.  ^ 
They  must  dismiss,  if  they  do  dismiss,  because  they  are 
satisfied  that  the  proceedings,  up  to  that  time,  have  not 
been  effective  and  have  not  demonstrated  a  prima  facie 


192 


case  upon  which  the  Presbytery  should  further  act.  Now 
that  is  what  we  claim  has  been  done.  We  have  preferred 
charges,  we  have  sustained  them  by  specifications,  and  we 
expect  that  the  Bible  and  the  Standards  of  our  Church,  the 
Confession  of  Faith,  will  sustain  those  charges..  All  that 
we  ask  in  behalf  of  the  Presbyterian  Church  is  that  we 
should  have  the  liberty  and  the  right  to  present  our  proofs 
to  this  largest  Presbytery  in  the  Presbyterian  Church,  an 
to  have  that  right  without  being  sent  out  of  Court  without 

a  Now“ts  to  the  question  of  policy,  which  I  hesitate  to 
mention  in  connection  with  a  matter  of  this  land,,  for 
shall  speak  to  the  question  of  right  farther  on— dismissing 
this  case,  at  this  stage  of  the  proceeding,  may  not  accom¬ 
plish  what  Dr.  Van  Dyke  suggests— the  peace  and  quiet 
of  the  Church.  If  a  dismissal  should  be  voted  at  this 
lr«a  „  appeal  taken  from  that  deeielon-ae  that 
would  be  a  point  from  which  the  Committee  would  have  a 
rioht  and  would  be  in  duty  bound,  and  feel  that  they  had 
tcT appeal  from— that  appeal  would  go  to  the  Synod,  and 
go  to  the  General  Assembly,  and  that  would  occupy  prob- 
«o  ably  two  years  on  a  collateral  and  preliminary  motion 
Pending  the  determination  of  that  question,  the  peace  and 
auiet  of  the  Church  which  we  so  much  desire  would  not 
be  possible.  I  wish  to  say  in  behalf  of  our  Committee, 
that  so  far  as  we  are  concerned  it  would  not  take  as  much 
time  to  present  our  case  to  this  Presbytery  as  we  have 
spent  in  the  last  meeting  and  this  in  the  discussion  of  the 
preliminary  motions.  We  can  act  very  promptly.  We 
propose  to  act  promptly.  Justice  to  the  Presbytery  and 
every  one  requires  that.  Now,  if  this  dismissal  is  made 
and  an  appeal  is  taken,  we  will  be  in  an  unsettled  condi¬ 
tion  for  two  years  at  least,  which  would  be  an  injustice  to 
the  Church,  and  an  injustice  to  the  accused ;  and  it  is  a 
thing  we  ought  to  consider,  that  this  Presbytery  should 


193 


not  send  up,  or  do  an  act  whicli  would  send  up,  an  appeal 
upon  a  preliminary  motion. 

So  far  as  the  situation  in  general  is  concerned,  a 
dilemma  has  been  presented.  Charges  have  been  pre¬ 
ferred,  sustained  by  specifications.  Under  the  provision 
of  the  22nd  Section  of  the  Book  of  Discipline,  the  accused 
has  presented  in  writing  his  objections  to  the  sufficiency 
of  the  charges  and  specifications  in  form  or  in  legal  effect. 

In  that  plea  an  ingenious  and  interesting  argument  upon 
the  merits  has  been  introduced,  and  I  do  not  think  it  is 
saying  too  much  if  I  should  state  that  substantially  all 
the  members  of  the  Presbytery  present  have  received  a 
very  good  idea  of  the  position  the  accused  is  likely  to  take 
on  the  trial.  I  do  not  object  to  that,  or  criticise  it.  Iam  64 
only  too  glad  that  the  accused  should  have  the  fullest  pos¬ 
sible  hearing,  and  I  am  glad  that  he  did  have  a  hearing, 
and  we  were  very  careful  not  to  interrupt  the  presentation 
of  it,  although  we  felt  at  the  time  that  we  were  listening 
to  an  argument  upon  the  merits. 

Now,  the  position  before  us  as  a  Presbytery  is  some¬ 
what  of  a  dilemma.  Either  the  accused  is  orthodox  upon 
the  points  raised  by  the  charges  and  specifications,  or  he 
is  not.  If  the  accused  is  orthodox,  this  Presbytery  should 
not  tarry  one  moment  in  rushing  to  the  vindication  of  our 
brother,  and  giving  him  the  only  opportunity  that  a  Pres¬ 
byterian  minister  can  have  when  questions  of  this  kind  are 
raised  to  vindicate  himself  in  the  presence  of  his  brethren, 
and  the  Church  of  which  he  is  a  part.  A  dilatory  motion 
like  this  is  of  itself  a  great  injustice ;  and  I  am  sure  that 
Dr.  Yan  Dyke,  when  he  stated  what  was  the  wish  of  the 
accused,  that  he  was  entirely  right,  because  it  would  be  a 
great  injustice  that  the  determination  of  this  question  be 
postponed  until  we  could  go  to  the  General  Assembly,  on 
a  collateral  motion. 

Now,  on  the  other  horn  of  the  dilemma.  Assuming 


194 


that  as  the  result  of  a  trial,  it  might  be  shown,  as  we 
claim  that  it  will  be  shown,  if  we  are  allowed  to  go  to 
trial,  that  the  accused  is  not  orthodox  on  the  questions 
that  have  been  raised.  Now,  gentlemen,  what  is  your  posi- 
tion  on  this?  You  have  undertaken,  as  Dr.  Van  Dyke 
says,  to  seek  to  sustain  the  peace  and  purity  of  the 
Church,  and  we  must  have  the  purity  before  there  can  be 
much  peace,  and  you  certainly  have  assumed  a  duty  in 
your  ordination  vows  to  see  to  it,  that  if  a  question  is 
raised,  and  a  prima  facia  case  made,  that  that  case  should 
be  sifted,  that  it  should  be  tried  in  all  proper,  ways,,  that 
all  the  rights  of  the  parties  shall  be  ascertained  definitely, 
and  that  nothing  shall  be  kept  back,  and  whatever  the 
conclusion  is,  you,  as  Presbyters,  have  it  on  your  con- 
science  to  carry  it  to  the  end.  I  do  not  say  “  hitter  end, 
as  has  been  stated  here.  I  do  not  think  there  is  any  bit¬ 
terness  about  it.  I  have  not  heard  a  word  of  it.  And  I 
feel  very  sure  that  the  accused  will  accept  the  position 
that  this  Presbytery  finally  reaches ;  he  has  done  as  much 
here  to-day.  Would  that  he  had  made  this  disavowal, 
which  has  encouraged  us. and  delighted  us,  complete,  and 
had  gone  one  step  further,  and  said,  “  I  submit  myself  to 
you,  my  brethren  in  the  Lord,  and  I  also  retract  those 
statements  which  have  caused  this  grievous  alarm  and 
concern  to  the  whole  Church.”  The  disavowals  disarmed 
and  delighted  us.  I  thought  Dr.  Van  Dyke  stated 
them  a  little  too  broadly,  but  if  they  had  been  ac¬ 
companied  by  the  statement,  “  If  I  have  said  or  done 

anything  that  grieved  my  brethren  in  the  Lord - ” 

instead  of  saying,  “I  am  sorry,”  he  should  have 
said  also,  “I  withdraw  that,  and  I  will  not  say  again, 
or  teach  again,  that  which  causes  anxiety  or  concern 
to  my  brethren  and  the  blessed  Church.”  Now,  you  have 
66  great  responsibility  in  this,  and  when  you  consider  this 
question,  it  is  not  to  be  turned  aside  by  sentiment.  Oh, 


195 


how  I  would  rejoice  if  I  could  see  this  thing  end  here 
to-day !  It  would  be  the  greatest  relief  of  a  lifetime,  if  I 
could  see  it.  But,  gentlemen,  under  the  provisions  of 
our  book — and  it  is  an  intelligent  one,  it  has  been  carefully 
made — it  is  not  becoming  to  us  as  Presbyters  to  assume 
that  discipline  is  all  out  of  x>lace,  and  that  the  discip¬ 
line  should  not  be  carried  out.  Would  that  that 
could  be  so,  but  it  cannot.  You  have  got  that 
responsibility  upon  you,  and  I  assure  you  when  you  vote 
you  should  take  into  consideration  fully  the  fact  that  if 
you  vote  in  favor  of  dismissal,  you  say  that  we  have  heard 
this  case  substantially,  we  agree  with  the  position  of  the 
accused,  we  disagree  with  the  position  of  this  appointed 
Committee,  and  we  disagree  with  those  who  have  sworn 
loyalty  to  the  Church,  and  we  take  the  responsibility  of 
saying,  without  having  a  presentation  of  the  charges  on 
their  merits,  that  we  are  willing  to  dismiss  this  case.  We 
cannot  determine  that,  because  it  must  go  on  in  one  way  or 
the  other ;  and  we  will  take  the  responsibility,  under  our 
ordination  vows,  of  dismissing  the  case  without  giving 
consideration  to  the  evidence  presented  by  the  Committee. 
We  stand  prepared,  and  we  expect  that  we  will  prove  to 
the  satisfaction  of  this  Presbytery,  from  the  Scriptures 
and  Standards  of  our  Church,  that  every  one  of  these 
charges  will  be  sustained.  Now,  the  ingenious  argu¬ 
ment  that  we  heard  is  very  affecting,  and  it  ought  to  have 
been,  because  it  appealed  to  that  which  is  in  the  heart  of 
every  Presbyterian  minister  and  elder  who  loves  the 
Church,  who  loves  its  peace,  and  who  would  like  extremely 
to  avoid  this  issue  if  they  could  possibly  do  so,  but  the 
trouble  is  we  cannot;  it  is  on  us,  it  is  here.  We  cannot 
avoid  it.  And  we  have  got  to  decide  it  under  our  ordina¬ 
tion  vows. 

Now,  as  the  facts  presented — a  fact  in  a  judicial  investi¬ 
gation,  is  something  proven.  I  do  not  know  what  the 


67 


196 


facts  are  that  Dr.  Van  Dyke  refers  to  in  that  resolution, 
but  they  should  be  proven  as  facts  before  they  are  voted 
upon  by  you  as  Presbyters,  as  such,  and  I  hope  that  that 
opportunity  will  be  given,  so  that  the  proof  may  be  full 
and  complete. 

Dr.  Van  Dyke  spoke  of  these  proceedings  as  if  the 
accused  was  not  to  be  heard.  In  the  first  place,  it  is  his 
right ;  second,  there  is  no  person  in  the  world,  so  far  as  I 
know,  who  would  not  hope  and  wish  the  accused  to  have 
the  fullest  possible  hearing  upon  any  point,  upon  all 
68  points ;  and  it  is  not  right  or  fair  to  say  that  if  you  dis¬ 
agree,  that  if  you  refuse  to  dismiss  at  this  time,  that  the 
accused  is  not  to  be  heard.  He  will  be  heard  as  fully,  I 
hope,  as  he  wishes,  and  I  am  sure  that  this  Presbytery 
will  safeguard  the  rights  of  every  one.  In  closing  I  wish 
to  say  that  the  Committee  hope  and  expect  to  prove,  out 
of  the  Scripture  and  by  our  Standards,  each  and  every  one 
of  the  charges  and  specifications  which  we  have  presented. 
We  desire  the  opportunity  to  do  so.  If  you  vote  to  dis¬ 
miss  you  refuse  us  that  opportunity ,  aud  you  refuse  the 
only  vindication  that  can  ever  come  in  reality  and  in  all 
sincerity  to  a  Presbyterian  official  against  whom  such 
charges  have  been  presented,  and  I  earnestly  appeal  to  you 
under  your  ordination  vows  to  remember  that  you  have  a 
great  duty  to  perform.  It  is  not  a  matter  of  sentiment,  and 
the  only  way  you  can  do  justice  to  yourself,  and  justice  to 
the  accused,  and  justice  to  our  blessed  Church,  is  to  pro¬ 
ceed  in  the  orderly  manner  provided  by  its  Standards  in 
the  trial  of  cases  like  this.” 

Dr .  J.  H.  Mellvaine  :  The  question  is,  whether  it  is  wise 
for  us  to  proceed  with  this  trial  on  the  basis  of  these 
charges  that  have  been  presented  to  us.  How,  the  Com¬ 
mittee  of  Prosecution  has  raised  a  question  as  to  whether  we 
have  any  right  at  this  point  to  dismiss  the  case.  We  have 
the  plain  words  of  the  Book  that  at  the  filing  of  such - 


197 


Dr.  Birch :  That  is  not  the  question  of  the  Prosecu-  gg 
tion. 

Dr.  Mcllraine  :  6 ‘ — shall  determine  all  such  prelimin¬ 
ary  objections  and  may  dismiss  the  case.”  Now,  it  has 
been  said  we  have  a  new  Book  of  Discipline,  and  perhaps 
this  will  not  apply.  This  is  a  new  Book  of  Discipline,  and 
certainly  there  is  nothing  in  it  that  contradicts  itself. 
When  any  clauses  were  added  to  it  they  were  not  added 
to  stultify  what  remains ;  and  there  is  nothing  in  our  new 
Book  of  Discipline  that  denies  that  which  was  in  the  old 
copy  that  would  have  been  removed.  The  question  is, 
whether  we  have  any  right  to  dismiss  the  case.  “  When 
the  Prosecution  is  initiated  by  a  Judicatory,  the  Presby¬ 
terian  Church  in  the  United  States  of  America  shall  be  the 
prosecutor,  and  an  original  party ;  and  in  all  other  cases 
the  individual  prosecutor  shall  bean  original  party.  ”  I 
do  not  see  the  statement  in  this  book  that  the  Prosecuting 
Committee  shall  be  the  prosecuting  party.  It  is  the  Pres¬ 
byterian  Church.  They  are  not  the  Presbytery.  We 
created  them,  and  now  they  say  we  cannot  dismiss 
the  case,  and  we  cannot  dismiss  them;  we  are  bound 
by  our  own  creation,  and  this  has  got  to  go  on  to  the 
bitter  end.  There  is  not  a  word  in  that  clause  about 
the  Prosecuting  Committee  being  the  prosecuting  party, 
and  in  the  next  clause  it  states  that  it  shall  appoint 
a  Committee  to  conduct  the  prosecution  in  all  its  stages. 
That  means  simply  that  if  the  accused  appeals,  then 
these  gentlemen  carry  the  case  along  up  to  a  higher  court ;  ^ 

and  it  does  not  mean  we  are  bound  by  our  creation  so  that 
they  can  carry  this  thing  along  in  spite  of  all  we  can  do. 

I  think  by  any  fair  reading  of  this  passage  we  have  a  right 
to  dismiss  that  Prosecuting  Committee  to-day ;  but  if  Dr. 
Briggs  appeals  to  the  end  of  the  case,  they  carry  it  on  in 
all  its  points.  The  question  which  has  been  stated  as 
before  you  is  this :  that  we  are  here  to  ascertain  whether 


198 


Dr.  Briggs  is  orthodox.  I  submit,  Mr.  Moderator,  that  is 
not  the  question  before  us  at  all.  There  is  not  a  man  here 
who  can  vote  on  this  trial  simply  whether  Dr.  Briggs  is 
orthodox  or  not ;  we  can  simply  vote  whether  these  speci¬ 
fications  sustain  the  charges,  and  whether  the  specifica¬ 
tions  are  sustained  by  the  proof  alleged.  We  may 
believe  that  Dr.  Briggs  is  very  wrong,  and  his  teachings 
are  very  injurious,  but  we  cannot  come  in  here  and  vote 
on  any  other  points  but  those.  A  member  of  the  Pres¬ 
bytery  said  the  other  day,  I  feel  in  my  bones  that  Dr. 
Briggs  is  a  heretic,”  but  he  cannot  come  here  in  this 
Court  and  tell  what  he  feels  in  his  bones.  It  may  have 
been  rheumatism  in  his  bones.  He  has  got  to  vote  simply 
on  that  question  whether  Dr.  Briggs  is  proven  to  be  a 
heretic  by  the  charges  and  specifications  and  proof  under 
those  specifications ;  the  question  has  been  raised  about 
the  time  that  it  is  going  to  take,  and  the  Prosecuting 
Committee  have  not  shown  us  that  we  shall  save  any  time 
71  in  this  matter  by  dismissing  this  now,  for  they  shall 
appeal  it  to  the  Synod  and  General  Assembly.  If  we  do 
go  on  the  accused  will  appeal  to  the  Synod  and  General 
Assembly,  so  there  is  not  time  saved  or  gained  in  either 
respect.  We  are  now  controlled,  I  am  thankful  to  say, 
under  superior  Courts ;  and  the  question  before  us  whether 
it  is  right  or  wise  for  us  to  go  on  with  this  trial  on  the 
basis  of  these  charges  and  specifications  when,  in  all  prob¬ 
ability,  or  certainly  with  great  possibility,  they  will  be 
overruled  and  sent  back  to  us  by  this  Superior  Court  as 
not  sufficient  in  form  or  in  legal  effect.  For  we  as  Pres¬ 
byterians  are  bound  very  closely  by  certain  rules,  princi¬ 
ples  laid  down  in  our  Book  of  Discipline  and  established 
by  our  Superior  Court,  by  which  at  every  stage  we  must 
be  bound.  This  Confession  of  Faith,  this  Book  of  Disci¬ 
pline  is  a  protection  which  is  thrown  all  about  a  man  to 
protect  him  at  every  point,  and  at  every  step,  against  in- 


199 


justice  or  interference ;  and  we  as  a  Presbyterian  body  are 
in  one  sense  on  trial  before  the  whole  world  to-day,  as  to 
onr  intelligence  to  comprehend  onr  own  rules  of  discipline, 
and  our  own  fairness,  justice  and  honor  in  carrying  them 
out.  A  minister  in  the  Congregational  Church  told  me  once 
that  he  knew  this  case  to  have  been ;  he  said  there  was  a 
man  in  a  Congregational  Church  who  had  a  dispute  with 
another  man  about  the  boundaries  of  some  property,  and 
the  other  man  brought  it  into  the  Church,  and  the  Church 
decided  the  previous  man  was  wrong,  and  the  first  man  72 
said  the  Church  knew  nothing  about  it  and  would  not 
accept  the  decision.  They  excommunicated  him.  They 
did  not  stop  there.  They  said  this  man  has  a  wife  and  a 
brother-in-law  and  children  and  they  will  make  trouble  in 
the  Church,  and  so  they  excommunicated  them  all.  That 
is  a  reflection  on  the  Church,  and  it  is  not  credible  in  the 
Presbyterian  Church.  The  superior  court  has  given  us 
principles  which  we  must  follow.  This  trial  has  been 
alluded  to  as  an  important  case,  and  the  Prosecuting  Com¬ 
mittee  say  they  intend  to  prove  it  all  at  the  proper  stage, 
but  that  it  has  no  reference  to  this  stage  of  the  case. 
Why,  we  need  to  remember  that  Mr.  Craighead’s  case  was 
sent  back  to  the  Synod  and  Presbytery  of  Kentucky 
because  in  their  charges  and  specifications  they  had  not 
observed  certain  rules  and  precedents  that  the  Assembly 
said  were  essential  and  should  be  observed ;  and  you  will 
find  that  these  precedents  and  rules  apply  not  only  to  the 
conduct  of  that  case  and  the  trial  of  the  case,  but  to  the 
form  of  the  charges  and  their  sufficiency  in  effect.  Now, 
the  first  of  these  is  as  to  the  definiteness  of  the  charge. 

Dr.  Briggs  read  a  part  of  the  extract  from  that  case.  I 
want  to  read  it  all.  “  There  was  a  great  deficiency  in  the 
charges  preferred  against  Mr.  Craighead  as  it  relates  to 
precision.  All  charges  for  heresy  should  be  as  definite  as  73 
possible.  The  Article  or  Articles  of  Faith  impugned 


200 


should  be  specified,  and  the  words  supposed  to  be  heretical 
shown  to  be  in  repugnance  to  these  Articles,  whether  the 
reference  is  made  directly  to  the  Scriptures  as  a  standard 
of  orthodoxy  or  to  the  Confession  of  Faith  which  our 
Church  holds  to  be  a  summary  of  the  doctrines  of  Scrip¬ 
ture,  but  in  none  of  the  charges  against  Mr.  Craighead 
has  this  been  done,  and  in  two  of  them  it  would  be  difficult 
to  say  what  Articles  of  Faith  are  impugned,”  and  so  they 
sent  it  back.  And  I  say  those  charges,  in  reference  to 
which  this  was  done,  are  very  similar  to  the  charges  we 
have  before  us ;  and  we  have  the  same  right  to  expect  they 
will  send  it  back  to  us.  A  charge  is  something  that  must 
set  forth  the  defense  in  such  a  clear,  definite  form  that 
there  will  be  no  defect  about  it  in  the  mind  of  the  accused, 
as  to  what  is  charged  against  him,  and  there  may  be  no 
room  for  doubt  as  to  what  the  Presbytery  is  voting  about, 
and  the  specification  must  set  forth  the  fact — the  Prose¬ 
cuting  Committee  has  conceded  a  fact  in  judicial  language 
as  something  already  proved.  Here  in  our  Book  it  says, 
‘ 4  it  shall  set  forth  the  facts  relied  upon  to  sustain  the 
charge,  ”  and  anything  in  the  specification  that  would  not 
convict  the  accused  of  the  crime  alleged  in  the  charge  is  by 
74  so  much  irrelevant.  Brown,  on  Military  Law,  says,  “That 
the  fact  or  facts  are  to  be  distinctly  specified  in  such  a 
manner  that  neither  the  accused  nor  court  can  have  any 
difficulty  in  knowing  what  is  the  precise  object  of  investi¬ 
gation.”  That  is  one  principle  laid  down.  The  second  is 
this,  that  where  there  is  any  doubt  or  ambiguity  in  the 
language  of  the  defendant  the  most  favorable,  and  not  the 
least  favorable  construction  shall  be  put  on  his  words. 
That  certainly  is  fair.  I  read  again  from  this  Craighead 
case.  “  Here  it  will  be  important  to  remember  that  a  man 
cannot  fairly  be  convicted  of  heresy  for  using  expressions 
which  may  be  so  interpreted  as  to  involve  heretical  doc¬ 
trines,  if  they  may  also  admit  of  a  more  favorable  con- 


201 


struction,  because  no  one  can  tell  in  wliat  sense  an 
ambiguous  expression  is  used  but  the  speaker  or  writer, 
and  he  has  a  right  to  explain  himself,  and  in  such  cases 
candor  requires  that  a  court  should  favor  the  accused  by 
putting  on  his  words  the  more  favorable  rather  than  the 

less  favorable  construction.” 

And  then,  subsequent  to  this,  in  the  Albert  Barnes  case, 
the  General  Assembly  explained  the  action  of  this  same 
decision :  ‘  c  Much  less  do  the  Assembly  adopt  as  doctrines 
consistent  with  our  standards  and  to  be  tolerated  in  our 
Church  the  errors  alleged  by  the  prosecutor  as  contained  75 
in  the  Book  on  the  Homans.  It  was  a  question  of  fact 
whether  the  errors  alleged  are  contained  in  the  Book,  and 
by  the  laws  of  exposition,  in  the  conscientious  exercise  of 
their  own  rights  and  duties  the  Assembly  have  come  to 
the  conclusion  that  the  Book  does  not  teach  the  errors 
charged.” 

This  judgment  of  the  Assembly  is  based  on  this  maxim 
of  equity  and  charity  adopted  by  the  Assembly  of  1824,  in 
the  case  of  Craighead,  which  is  as  follows :  u  A  man  cannot 
be  fairly  convicted  of  heresy  for  using  expressions  which 
may  be  so  interpreted  as  to  involve  heretical  doctrines,  if 
they  also  admit  of  a  more  favorable  construction.  The 
import  of  this  is  that,  when  language  claimed  to  be  heretical 
admits,  without  violence  of  an  orthodox  exposition,  and 
the  accused  disclaims  the  error  and  claims  as  his  meaning 
the  orthodox  interpretation,  he  is  entitled  to  it,  and  it  is 
to  be  regarded  as  the  true  intent  and  import  of  his  words. 
But  in  the  case  of  the  first  edition  of  the  notes  on  the 
Homans,  the  language  is  without  violence  reconcilable  with 
our  standards,  and  therefore  all  the  changes  of  phrase¬ 
ology,  which  he  has  subsequently  made,  and  all  his  dis¬ 
claimers  before  the  Assembly,  and  all  the  definite  and 
unequivocal  declarations  of  the  true  intent  and  meaning,  of 
his  words  in  the  first  edition,  are  to  be  taken  as  ascertain-  7 0 


202 


mg  his  true  meaning,  and  forbid  the  Assembly  to  condemn, 
as  teaching  great  and  dangerous  errors.”  It  is  in  the 
Digest  703,  two  years,  I  think,  subsequent  to  the  other 
trial  (1836). 

Another  principle  laid  down  by  the  Assembly  in  this 
same  trial,  is  that  no  man  can  be  rightly  convicted  of 
heresy  by  implication  and  construction  from  his  work. 
u  Another  principle  is  that  no  man  can  be  rightly  convicted 
of  heresy  by  inference  or  implication.  That  is,  we  must 
not  charge  an  accused  person  holding  those  consequences 
which  may  legitimately  flow  from  his  assertions.” 

Dr.  A.  F.  Schauffler:  Is  this  an  order?  Is  it  an  argu¬ 
ment  of  the  question  now  before  us  ? 

The  Moderator:  The  Moderator  understands  that  Dr. 
Mcllvaine  is  showing  reasons  why  we  should  dismiss  the 
case.  This  is  generic  to  that. 

Dr.  Mcllvaine:  The  other  principle  laid  down  by  the 
Assembly  by  which  we  must  try  these  charges,  is  this : 
that  no  man  shall  be  charged  with  opinions  which  he  dis¬ 
avows.  “  Many  men  are  grossly  inconsistent  with  them- 
77  selves,  and  while  it  is  right  in  argument  to  overthrow  false 
opinions  by  tracing  them  in  their  connections  and  conse¬ 
quences,  it  is  not  right  to  charge  any  man  with  an  opinion 
which  he  disavows.  Arg.  in  A.  B.  trial,  commencing,  ‘  It 
is  not  right  to  charge  any  man  with  an  opinion  which  he 
disavows.’  ” 

Then  a  fourth  principle  laid  down  by  the  Assembly  in 
this  trial  is  that  4  4  A  charge  must  be  so  conclusively  estab¬ 
lished  as  to  remove  all  doubt.” — Craighead.  “  The  con¬ 
clusion  is  that  the  first  charge,  though  supported  by  strong 
probabilities,  is  not  so  conclusively  established  as  to 
remove  all  doubt,  because  the  words  adduced  in  proof 
will  bear  a  different  construction  from  that  put  upon  them 
by  the  Presbytery  and  Synod.  Again,  4  ‘  Whereas,  the 
charges  are  not  so  conclusively  established  as  to  remove 


203 


all  doubt,  the  general  Assembly  cannot  see  the  way  clear 
to  confirm  the  sentence  of  the  Synod  of  Kentucky.” 
Under  the  criminal  law  the  defendant  has  a  right  to  any 
reasonable  doubt;  under  the  ecclesiastical  law  he  has  a 
right  to  all  doubt.  There  he  is  entitled  to  justice ;  here 
he  is  not  only  to  have  justice,  but  all  charity.  We  are 
under  such  laws  and  principles  and  precepts  as  we  are, 
and  we  must  see  that  in  every  step  these  charges  conform 
to  those  principles  or  they  will  certainly  be  sent  back  to 
us.  I  want  to  apply  these  briefly  to  the  charges  and 
specifications.  I  want  to  add  a  word  to  what  Dr.  Van 
Dyke  said  as  to  that.  I  feel,  Brother  Moderator,  that 
that  preamble  is  unworthy  of  us  as  a  Presbytery.  There 
are  strong  and  painful  allegations  made  in  it  of  the  very  73 
greatest  error  and  heresy  without  a  shadow  of  truth ;  and 
I  think  that  the  defendant,  in  his  calm  and  dignified  and 
gentle  reply,  puts  the  Committee  on  the  horns  of  a  dilemma. 
Either  they  ought  to  have  put  them  in  the  form  of  charges, 
so  that  they  could  be  denied  and  proved,  or  else,  if  they  did 
not  see  fit  to  do  that,  they  ought  to  have  said  nothing 
about  them.  As  I  understand  it,  this  Committee  was 
appointed  to  make  direct  charges,  not  to  make  any  insin¬ 
uations,  and  these  are  very  much  like  insinuations.  There 
is  another  thing  I  must  say,  that  is,  that  the  Committee 
was  appointed  by  the  Presbytery  in  the  Spring  to  consider 
Dr.  Briggs’  inaugural  address,  of  which  I  happened  to  be 
one.  Now  this  Committee  took  up  every  one  of  those 
errors  mentioned  here  so  far  as  they  are  down  in  the 
inaugural  address,  discussed  them  very  carefully,  went 
over  them  very  thoroughly,  and  dropped  them  unani¬ 
mously  on  the  ground  that  it  would  be  impossible  to  sus¬ 
tain  them  by  proof,  and  that  Committee  is  in  the  majority, 
the  same  as  the  majority  of  this  Committee.  It  is  evident 
that  the  reason  these  were  not  put  in  the  form  of  charges, 
the  first  reason,  I  will  not  say  the  only  reason,  but  the  first 


204 


important  reason,  was  because  it  was  plainly  seen  they 
could  not  be  established  by  proof,  and  the  subordinate 
reason  is  that  it  would  take  too  much  of  the  time 
of  the  Presbytery.  And  as  to  that  second  part  of  the 
79  preamble  in  which  Dr.  Briggs  is  charged  with  having  dis¬ 
turbed  the  peace  of  the  Church  to  such  a  very  wide  extent, 
that  also  is  a  grave  extent,  and,  if  it  could  be  proved,  that 
ought  to  have  been  put  in  the  form  of  a  charge,  to  give 
him  the  right  to  deny  it  and  to  bring  evidence  to  the  con¬ 
trary,  and  to  prove  whether  he  or  some  one  else  has  been 
the  means  of  disturbing  the  peace  of  the  Church.  That 
inaugural  address  contains  nothing  that  he  had  not  put  in 
his  books  before.  His  books  did  not  disturb  the  peace  of 
the  Church  to  any  great  extent,  but  in  his  inaugural  ad¬ 
dress — he  did  not  intend  to  write  an  address  on  that  sub¬ 
ject  at  all,  as  I  know  he  had  prepared  a  different  address, 
and  in  compliance  with  the  wish  of  the  President  of  the 
Board  of  Directors  of  Union  Seminary,  the  gentleman  who 
so  kindly  endowed  this  chair,  who  came  to  him  and  said, 
“  I  do  not  want  you  to  speak  on  that  question  you  have 
chosen,”  but  he  wanted  him  to  speak  on  some  points  of 
issue.  His  judgment  was  overruled,  and  he  accepted  that 
decision,  and  we  have  this  inaugural  address ;  but  it  was 
not  to  disturb  the  peace  of  the  Church.  It  was  the  taking 
of  phrases  from  it,  the  culling  of  words  from  it  here  and 
there,  misrepresenting  and  misinterpreting  them,  sending 
them  through  the  newspapers,  which  breaks  through  the 
gQ  report,  making  them  suspicious  of  heresies  in  the  Presby¬ 
tery  until  no  one  knew  what  Dr.  Briggs  had  said.  I 
remember  a  member  of  one  of  the  Presbyteries  wrote  to 
me  and  said :  ‘ ‘  What  in  the  world  are  you  standing  by 
Dr.  Briggs  for,  when  he  does  not  believe  in  the  inspiration 
of  the  Scriptures?”  And  I  wrote  back  to  him:  “You 
know  no  more  about  this  case  than  one  unborn.”  That  is 
the  case  of  three-fourths  of  the  Presbyteries  in  the  Assem- 


205 


bly.  It  was  through  misrepresentations  of  Dr.  Briggs’ 
sayings  and  his  position  that  this  whole  country  was 
stirred  up ;  and  I  think,  in  reply  to  such  a  charge  as  that, 
a  charge  that  he  feels  to  be  unjust,  he  makes  that  sweet 
and  kindly  statement,  that  if  he  has  been  guilty  of  this 
offense  no  man  can  regret  it  more  than  he  does,  we  ought 
to  feel  an  admiration  for  him.  I  hope,  Mr.  Moderator, 
whatever  may  be  done  in  these  charges,  or  if  the  Presby¬ 
tery  does  proceed  to  this  trial,  first  of  all  that  they  cut  out 
that  preamble  as  unworthy  of  this  Presbytery,  and  un¬ 
worthy,  I  will  also  say,  of  the  Prosecuting  Committee. 

Dr.  J.  F.  Sutton :  Mr.  Moderator,  I  think  we  should  81 
have  something  to  speak  on  that  is  pertinent.  We  cannot 
argue  the  points  at  issue  before  they  are  presented  pro 
and  con.  I  wish  to  present  a  resolution. 

The  Moderator :  A  resolution  is  out  of  order  at  this 
time. 

Dr.  Sutton  :  I  present  a  resolution  as  a  substitute  for 
Dr.  Yan  Dyke’s  motion,  and  I  think  he  will  accept  it. 

The  Moderator  :  I  think  Dr.  Mcllvaine  has  the  floor. 

Dr.  Sutton  :  I  thought  Dr.  Mcllvaine  had  given  up  the 
floor. 

Dr.  Mcllvaine :  I  want  to  apply  these  principles,  the 
principles  that  have  been  so  firmly  established  and  for  half 
a  century  have  been  the  law  of  the  Church — I  want  to 
apply  them  to  these  charges  and  specifications.  As  to  the 
definiteness  of  this  first  charge,  I  think  that  has  been 
thoroughly  gone  into.  There  is  more  than  one  offence 
alleged — the  teaching  of  doctrines.  We  do  not  know 
what  doctrine.  The  whole  question  is  open.  As  to  the 
specifications,  first.  There  are  three  great  fountains 
of  divine  authority.  Apply  that  first  principle,  that  the 
most  favorable  construction  is  to  be  put  on  the  man’s  lan¬ 
guage.  The  most  favorable  construction  ?  Why,  it  is 
certain  God  speaks  to  men  in  three  ways,  through  the 


206 


Church  and  its  sacraments,  through  the  conscience,  and 
through  the  Bible,  but  that  the  Bible  is  the  infallible  rule 
of  faith  and  practice,  and  that  these  others  are  subordi¬ 
nate  and  inferior  methods  by  which  God  communicates 
with  men.  Dr.  Briggs  has  especially  disclaimed  that  he 
holds  that  there  are  three  co-ordinate  forms  of  authority, 
and  it  is  simply  the  inference  of  the  Committee  that  these 
are  sufficient  and  independent.  Applying  the  second 
principle  that  no  man  is  to  be  charged  by  the  inference  of 

82  another,  that  is  simply  the  inference  of  the  Committee 
that  these  are  sufficient  and  independent  courses  of  Divine 
authority.  He  does  not  say  that  he  does  hold  that.  He 
has  plainly  disavowed  it ;  and  although  they  say  he  has 
no  right  to  make  any  disavowals  in  his  presentation  of 
the  charges,  that  it  is  only  the  form  and  not  the  matter, 
the  form  is  so  closely  connected  with  the  matter  that  you 
cannot  separate  them,  and  he  has  disavowed  that  he  holds 
there  are  three  co-ordinate  sources  of  authority,  that  there 
is  one  that  is  infallible  and  two  that  are  fallible.  The 
charge  is  that  he  contradicts  the  cardinal  doctrine  that 
the  Bible  is  the  only  infallible  rule  of  faith  and  practice. 
He  says  there  is  one  infallible,  one  supreme,  and  two  sub¬ 
ordinate.  Does  that  contradict  and  prove  conclusively 
beyond  a  doubt  the  charge  that  is  made  ?  The  other  two 
specifications  with  reference  to  the  sufficiency  of  the  Scrip¬ 
ture  are  also  of  the  same  character.  Applying  the  most 
favorable  construction  to  his  language,  the  language  that 
is  quoted,  does  it  mean  that  at  all  ?  Is  it  not  rather  a  vio¬ 
lent  forcing  of  his  language  in  trying  to  make  out  that  as 
what  he  has  said  there  ?  How  does  that  make  out  or  mean 
that  the  Holy  Scriptures  are  not  sufficient  to  give  knowl- 

83  e^ge  Gtod  and  His  will  which  is  necessary  to  salvation, 
although  they  try  ever  so  hard.  There  is  great  difference 
between  sufficiency  and  efficacy.  The  insufficiency  he 
refers  to  was  in  the  line  of  himself.  Newman  could  not 


207 


find — so  lie  says — could  not  find  certainty  in  the  Bible. 
Was  that  the  fault  of  the  Bible  or  the  fault  in  the  man  ? 
The  man  may  have  been  so  blinded,  so  prejudiced,  that  he 
could  not  find  the  sufficiency  in  the  Bible,  but  that  was 
not  the  fault  of  the  Bible. 

Prof.  Stevenson :  W e  are  very  willing  to  give  every 
possible  liberty,  but  the  prosecution  is  decidedly  unwill¬ 
ing  to  have  the  merits  of  the  case  entered  into  on  every 
specification,  when  the  motion  is  so  put  that  if  it  is  carried 
the  case  will  be  dismissed,  and  the  prosecution  will  not  be 
heard.  It  is  unjust. 

Dr.  Mcllvaine :  I  am  simply  applying  the  principles. 

Prof.  Stevenson :  I  ask  for  a  decision. 

The  Moderator :  The  Moderator  decides  that  the  brother 
is  discussing  the  question  of  dismissal,  and  is  giving  rea¬ 
sons  why,  in  view  of  the  insufficiency  of  the  charges,  we 
should  dismiss  the  case.  Of  course  it  involves,  somewhat, 
the  merits  of  the  case  as  presented  in  the  question,  but  the 
brother  should  confine  himself  distinctly  to  the  question  34 
before  us,  as  to  the  propriety  and  justice  of  now  dismiss¬ 
ing  the  case  in  view  of  what  has  been  stated. 

Dr.  Wylie :  May  I  ask  a  question  ?  After  we  have 
allowed  this  liberty  to  the  brother,  it  is  understood  the 
whole  case  can  be  gone  into  on  either  side  in  this  discus¬ 
sion  ? 

The  Moderator :  No,  sir.  The  question  is  as  to  the 
dismissal  of  the  case,  and  the  brother  should  not  enter 
into  the  merits  of  the  main  question  in  discussing  that 
point. 

Dr.  Schauffler :  We  claim  they  are  entering  into  details 
of  the  case.  He  is  discussing  it  down  to  the  minutest 
details,  and  if  he  claims  that  is  right,  we  shall  claim  that 
right.  If  the  Moderator  claims  that  is  in  order,  I  appeal 
from  the  decision  of  the  Moderator  to  the  decision  of  the 
house. 


208 


Dr.  Mcllvaine :  I  am  proving  this  case  ought  to  be  dis¬ 
missed,  because  these  specifications  are  irrelevant  to  the 
charge  ;  and  I  am  trying  to  show  that  the  second  specifi¬ 
cation  is  irrelevant  to  the  charge,  and. I  am  about  to  give 
my  reason  for  thinking  so. 

A  Member :  That  was  certainly  right  in  the  case ;  he 
should  argue  on  that,  and  not  on  those  charges. 

Dr.  Mcllvaine:  I  am  arguing  on  the  light  already 
given  ns.  (The  resolution  was  again  read.) 
g5  Dr.  Robinson :  There  are  some  others  that  feel  wearied 
by  this  one  point  that  has  been  pressed,  and  we  desire  to 
be  as  gentle  and  true  as  we  can.  We  honestly  believe  in 
onr  hearts  that  before  all  this  talk  began  the  Committee 
ought  to  have  been  heard ;  they  were  the  ones  that  ought 
to  have  presented  the  facts ;  we  are  now  excluding  these. 
We  believe  Dr.  Van  Dyke’s  resolution  was  not  in  ordei. 
We  believe  this  wholesale  discussion,  with  the  judgment 
at  the  end  that  shuts  off  the  Committee  from  making  the 
case,  is  the  injustice  of  the  whole  thing,  and  what  we  want 
to  know  is  whether  this  is  to  be  permitted  to  others  after¬ 
wards. 

The  Moderator :  I  would  just  say  that  one  member  of 
the  Committee  has  just  been  heard,  and  the  others  will 
certainly  be  heard. 

Dr.  Robinson :  And  they  will  each  be  heard  as  fully  as 
Dr.  Mcllvaine  on  the  merits  of  the  case  ? 

The  Moderator :  Not  on  the  merits  of  the  case.  The 
brother  must  confine  himself  specifically  to  the  question. 

Dr.  Van  Dyke  :  My  motion  was  ruled  out  of  order  once 
in  order  that  the  Committee  might  be  heard.  As  yon 
know,  my  motion  as  originally  presented  was  ruled  out  of 
order.  It  was  ruled  out  of  order  in  order  that  the  Com¬ 
mittee  might  be  heard.  You  asked  that  the  Committee 
might  be  heard,  and  Dr.  Stevenson  appeared  and  spoke 
about  the  objections.  They  were  asked  if  they  wanted  to 


209 


be  heard  further,  and  they  said  no.  I  had  hoped  that  the  86 
facts  which  had  been  so  well  presented  by  Dr.  Briggs 
would  not  again  be  presented. 

Dr.  Sutton:  I  would  like  to  offer  a  substitute  which 
Dr.  Van  Dyke  will  accept. 

The  Moderator :  Dr.  Mcllvaine  has  the  floor,  and  he 
will  confine  himself  distinctly  to  the  matter  in  hand. 

Dr .  Mel  lvalue  :  I  will  simply  go  back  to  the  question, 
is  it  wise,  with  such  charges  as  we  have  already  seen  these 
to  be,  and  the  same  line  that  has  been  begun,  to  be  carried 
out  to  the  end — is  it  wise  for  us  to  proceed  to  this  trial  ? 

Is  it  wise  at  this  time,  when  so  many  different  points  are 
under  discussion— for  example,  here  is  this  question  of 
Moses  and  the  Pentateuch— it  is  not  wise  for  this  Pres¬ 
bytery  to  array  itself  against  certainly  a  very  large  part 
of  the  scholarship  of  the  world.  A  very  great  mistake 
that  the  friends  of  the  Bible  have  always  made  has  been 
of  arraying  the  Bible  against  certain  facts  of  science,  and 
then  having  to  take  it  back.  Now  we  do  not  want  to 
make  that  mistake.  It  is  not  the  time  to  settle  these 
questions  about  Moses  and  the  Pentateuch. 

Mr .  W.  R.  Worrall :  He  is  not  speaking  to  the  resolu¬ 
tion  before  the  house  on  the  facts  which  they  say  have  been 
decided  here.  That  is  what  the  resolution  calls  for,  and 
I  insist  the  brother  be  held  to  that. 

Dr.  Me  I  lvalue :  The  point  I  want  to  make  in  closing  is 
simply  the  right  and  wisdom  and  expediency  of  going  on  S7 
with  this  trial  at  this  season  when,  from  the  very  utmost 
that  the  Prosecuting  Committee  could  do,  they  have 
brought  us  a  paper  which  certainly  is  very  questionable 
as  to  these  rules  and  decisions  that  have  been  laid  down. 

I  wish  very  much  that  we  might  see  to-day  in  this  house 
two  of  those  who  I  believe  are  now  saints  in  heaven.  The 
last  day  that  Dr.  Crosby  was  seen  among  men,  the  day, 
and  in  the  very  room  from  which  he  was  summoned  to  go 


210 


to  his  daughter’s  bedside — from  which  he  came  back  to  his 
own  death-bed— he  said,  talking  to  me  about  this  matter, 

“  On  the  basis  of  the  inaugural  address  it  would  be  simply 
impossible  to  sustain  charges  of  heresy  ’  ’ ;  and  Dr.  Van 
Dyke  answered,  “  Yes,  unless  the  Confession  of  Faith  is 
changed  first.”  Brethren,  if  those  two  men  were  here  to¬ 
day,  can  any  one  doubt  as  to  which  side  their  voices 
would  be  heard  on  ?  Or  if  they  should  speak  to  us  from 
where  they  are,  seeing  all  that  they  see  now,  seeing  how 
immensely  important  are  other  questions  and  how  com¬ 
paratively  trifling  is  this  question,  do  you  think  that  their 
advice  to  us  would  be  to  let  this  matter  drop  at  this  stage 
of  procedure  rather  than  to  stir  up  the  feeling  that  must 
be  and  always  is  stirred  up  in  every  trial  for  heresy,  rathei 
than  have  the  name  of  our  Church  dragged  through  all  the 
lines  in  the  newspapers,  held  up  as  an  object  of  contempt, 
as  it  has  been  in  so  many  of  them,  represented  as  arrayed 
against  all  progress  and  liberty  of  thought,  and  all  scholai  - 
88  ship  ?  Would  it  not  be  better  now  to  dismiss  this  case 
when  we  do  not  have  to  vote  on  the  question  at  all  as  to 
Dr.  Briggs’  orthodoxy,  or  on  the  question  of  Dr.  Briggs 
heresy,  but  simply  on  the  question  as  to  the  relevancy  of 

those  charges  ? 

Prof.  Stevenson :  I  desire  to  make  a  personal  explana¬ 
tion.  I  was  a  member  of  that  Committee  of  Investiga¬ 
tion.  I  had  somewhat  to  do  with  the  preparation  of  the 
report.  I  did  not  agree  to  leave  out  those  charges  because 
I  did  not  think  they  would  be  proved.  I  did  not  agree 
to  omit  all  reference  to  those  other  subjects,  because  they 
were  not  capable  of  proof.  Dr.  Mcllvaine  misunderstands. 
Now,  as  for  this  preamble  to  which  reference  is  made. 
There  is  a  preamble  of  the  report.  They  are  not  the 
charges  which  are  before  the  house.  The  preamble  of  the 
report  has  nothing  to  do  with  the  charges  now  to  be  dis¬ 
cussed.  This  Presbytery  has  now  to  decide  whether  the 


211 


charges  and  specifications  will  endure.  The  preamble  of 
the  report  is  nothing.  That  was  proved,  however,  the 
last  time.  But  my  point  of  personal  explanation  is,  that 
the  matters  referred  to  in  the  preamble  of  this  Commit¬ 
tee’s  report  were  not  omitted  by  me  from  the  report  of 
the  Committee  of  Investigation,  because  I  supposed  they 
were  incapable  of  proof,  or  that  they  could  not  be  sup¬ 
ported  if  put  in  the  shape  of  charges ;  that  was  not  my 
understanding  of  my  action. 

Dr.  Sutton  :  I  wish  to  offer  an  amendment  to  Dr.  Yan 
Dyke’s  motion  which  is  before  the  house,  which  he  says  he  89 
will  accept,  and  doubtless  he  will.  We  are  in  danger  of 
being  called  in  question  for  this  day’s  business,  and  we  must 
have  a  record  which  we  can  send  to  the  higher  Court,  and 
upon  that  resolution  there  will  be  no  record  except  the 
desire  of  this  Court,  which  is  no  record  at  all,  to  go  to  a 
higher  Court.  I  offer  this  as  an  amendment :  “  Resolved , 
that  in  consideration  of  the  objections  filed  by  Dr.  Briggs 
in  this  Court,  in  the  case  of  the  Presbyterian  Church  in 
the  United  States  of  America  against  him,  as  to  the  suffi¬ 
ciency  of  the  charges  and  specifications  in  form  and  in 
legal  effect,  the  case  against  him  be  and  hereby  is  dis¬ 
missed.”  That  makes  a  clean  record  of  the  Court  which 
can  go  up,  and  the  higher  Court  can  understand  the 
reasons  why  the  Court  has  taken  action.  If  the  Court 
chooses  to  debate  this  question,  we  have  something  to  de¬ 
bate.  We  have  consumed  the  afternoon  in  debating  the 
merits  of  the  case,  when  the  case  has  not  been  presented. 

The  Moderator  :  Let  us  have  the  paper.  (Paper  handed 
to  the  Moderator.)  Dr.  Hastings  will  speak  to  this  paper, 
this  form  which  is  before  us. 

Dr.  Van  Dyke  :  The  last  word  Dr.  Sutton  read  sounded 
like  u  Dissolved.”  It  meant  “  Dismissed.” 

Dr.  Sutton:  Yes,  u  Dismissed.” 

By  request,  the  resolution  was  again  read. 


212 


90 


91 


REMAEKS  BY  DR.  HASTINGS. 

Mr.  Moderator  :  One  of  the  arguments  submitted  by 
Mr.  McCook  on  behalf  of  the  Committee  of  Prosecu¬ 
tion  is  to  my  mind  extraordinary,  yet  legitimate  under  the 
ruling  of  the  Moderator  this  morning,  supported  after  the 
appeal  to  the  House.  This  Presbytery  created  a  Commit¬ 
tee.  According  to  all  precedent  and  usage  it  was  to  be 
supposed  that  that  Committee  was  to  work  in  the  service 
and  under  the  direction  and  control  of  this  Presbytery  *, 
but  a  new  doctrine  has  come  in,  and  this  Presbytery  is 
now  under  the  control  of  that  Committee  and  has  no  lights 
whatever  in  the  case,  and  we  are  told  by  Mr.  McCook 
that  one  of  the  reasons  for  voting  against — I  presume  he 
would  apply  the  same  thing  to  the  amended  resolution  as 
to  the  original  resolution — one  of  the  reasons  for  voting 
against  that  resolution  is,  that  if  we  dismiss  the  case  now 
this  Presbytery — this  Committee — we  are  nowhere  as  a 
Presbytery — but  this  Committee,  which  represents  in  itself 
governing  independence  the  Presbyterian  Church  of  the 
United  States  of  America,  proposed  to  take  the  case  up  to 
the  Synod,  and  then  if  not  satisfied  with  the  Synod  thence 
to  the  General  Assembly.  Well,  sir,  I  confess  that  this  is 
new  doctrine  to  me  as  a  Presbyterian.  It  has  puzzled  my 
feeble  brain  immensely.  I  cannot  understand  it,  and 
though  I  had  supposed  myself  a  loyal  and  thorough  Pres¬ 
byterian  I  cannot  accept  it.  I  have  nothing  to  say  against 
this  Committee,  but  I  have  something  to  say  against  any 
Committee  under  such  circumstances  having  such  power. 

Dr.  Robinson  :  Is  this  in  order? 

Dr.  Hastings  :  If  my  brother,  Hr.  Robinson,  will  let 
me  alone,  I  think  I  will  show  I  am  in  order. 

Dr.  Robinson  :  That  question  was  decided  by  the  Mode¬ 
rator,  sustained  by  the  Presbytery,  and  the  question  is  out 
of  order. 


213 


Dr.  Hastings :  I  know  that  question  was  decided  this 
morning  by  the  Moderator ;  but  this  is  used  here  as  an 
argument  on  the  other  side,  and  I  am  proceeding  to  answer 
that  argument,  and  I  think  that  is  pertinent  and  in  order. 
Am  I  right,  Mr.  Moderator? 

The  Moderator  :  I  think  you  should  coniine  yourself  a 
little  more,  sir,  to  the  questions  before  us  for  dismissing 
this  case. 

Dr.  Hastings  :  That  is  one  of  the  reasons  for  dismissing 
this  case  which  was  given  to  this  House  but  a  short  time 
ago  by  Mr.  McCook,  and  I  am  talking  against  his 
reason.  If  it  was  not  a  reason  for  arguing  against  the  dis¬ 
missal  of  the  case  then  he  should  have  been  called  to  order, 
not  I.  (Applause.) 

The  Moderator :  I  think  he  did  not  give  it  in  that  line. 
(Then  in  view  of  the  applause  by  the  audience) : 

We  occupy  this  house  on  a  distinct  understanding  with 
the  Pastor  and  elders  of  the  Church,  that  we  should  re¬ 
frain  from  all  demonstrations  of  this  sort,  and  I  hope  that 
discretion  will  restrain  the  expression  of  feeling  on  the 
part  of  the  audience. 

Dr.  Hastings  :  I  have  said  as  much  as  I  cared  to  about 
that  point.  I  have  somewhat  to  say  about  another  point. 
I  argue  for  the  dismissal  of  this  case  for  the  sake  of  the 
peace  of  Jerusalem.  They  shall  prosper  who  love  her; 
and  I  pray  and  plead  for  the  peace  of  Jerusalem.  As  I 
have  listened  to  that  remarkable  paper  which  Dr.  Briggs 
presented  to  us  this  morning,  and  followed  it  from  point 
to  point,  and  theme  to  theme,  I  could  not  see  how  any 
man  who  had  in  his  heart  a  desire  for  the  honor  of  the 
Church  and  her  Blessed  Head  could  permit  this  trial  to 
go  on.  I  am  not  a  Pastor  now,  but  have  and  always  shall 
have  the  feeling  and  the  heart  of  a  Pastor ;  and  for  the 
sake  of  these  dear  Churches  in  this  city  I  do  desire,  since 
Dr.  Briggs  has  opened  his  mind  and  heart  to  us  so  freely 


92 


214 


and  in  such  a  charming  spirit — I  do  desire  that  this  case 
should  stop  where  it  is;  and  that  this  beloved  brother 
should  be  permitted  to  go  back  again  to  the  important 
work  to  which  the  Lord  has  called  him,  for  I  have  lived 
long  enough  to  know  that  a  heresy  trial  burns  over  the 
ground,  and  blasts  and  curses  everything  that  is  fairest 
and  best — for  the  sake  of  these  beloved  Pastors  and  the 
93  Churches  which  they  represent,  I  desire  that  this  case  may 
stop  where  it  is,  on  sufficient  grounds,  as  I  think,  in  the 
paper  presented  this  morning. 

Then  there  is  another  reason :  I  feel  jealous  of  the  honor 
of  this  Presbytery.  I  love  this  Church  more  than  I  dare 
trust  myself  to  say ;  but,  sir,  the  rights  and  the  honor  of 
this  Presbytery  have  been  strangely,  sadly  interfered  with. 
It  is  not  our  fault  either ;  but  I  am  prepared  to  say  this, 
that  under  the  existing  circumstances,  the  63  Presbyteries 
throughout  the  country  have  been  interfering  with  the 
rights  and  prerogatives  of  this  Presbytery  in  a  way  un¬ 
paralleled  in  the  history  of  the  Church.  It  is  not  our 
fault ;  but,  sir,  this  is  the  fact  because  of  what  I  consider 
a  thoroughly  un-Presbyterian,  unconstitutional  arrange¬ 
ment,  it  was  possible  that  the  rights  of  a  Minister  of  Jesus 
Christ  should  be  violated.  According  to  our  polity,  the 
Minister  that  is  to  teach  in  a  Seminary  must  be  tried  and 
approved  first  by  his  Presbytery,  and  not  first  by  the 
General  Assembly ;  and  just  there  comes  in  all  the  trouble. 
We  approach  this  trial  with  the  impossibility  of  fairness 
staring  us  in  the  face,  because  without  hearing,  without 
judicial  procedure,  and  without  respect  to  the  original 
right  of  the  Presbytery,  the  stigma  of  the  Court,  the 
94  highest  Court  of  our  Church  has  been  put  upon  my  beloved 
brother ;  and  if  there  were  no  other  reason  than  that,  I  for 
one  should  be  here  to  argue  that  we  cannot  fairly  try  the 
case.  Justice  is  impossible  under  the  circumstances ;  and 
we  had  better  turn  to  mercy,  and  see  to  it  that  hereafter 


215 


there  should  be  no  likelihood  or  chance  of  violating  that 
noble  polity  of  our  noble  Church  in  such  a  way  as  that 
the  duty  and  business  which  belong  primarily  to  the 
Presbytery  shall  be  handled  first  by  the  General  Assembly . 
Then  I  must  say  I  have  one  other  reason  for  arguing  for 
the  dismissal  of  this  case.  I  know  Dr.  Briggs’  views  prob¬ 
ably  as  well  as  any  man  in  this  house.  I  know  that  those 
charges  are  not  true.  I  mean  to  say  nothing  against  the 
character  or  integrity  of  the  Committee ;  but  I  know  of  my 
own  knowledge  that  he  is  not  guilty  under  those  charges 
and  specifications ;  and  I  do  think,  or  I  believe  I  know 
what  the  English  language  means,  although  I  shall  not 
undertake  to  be  an  authority  in  Hebrew — I  do  think  that 
paper  read  this  morning,  by  its  singular  clearness  and  by 
its  obvious  spirit  of  honesty,  should  satisfy  this  house  that 
the  wisest  and  best  thing  that  we  can  do  for  the  interest  of 
Christ’s  Kingdom  is  to  dismiss  this  case  here  and  now. 

Mr.  S.  G.  Law  :  Mr.  Moderator - 

The  Moderator :  Which  side  do  you  speak  on? 

Mr.  Law  :  I  speak  on  the  side  of  the  Committee,  in 
support  of  this  Committee.  I  do  not  wish  to  make  a 
speech.  I  will  be  satisfied  with  presenting  briefly  some 
reasons  why  I  would  support  the  peace.  I  am  in  sympa¬ 
thy  with  the  object  too,  and  I  think  we  all  are.  We  all 
desire  peace.  But  in  the  first  place  I  do  not  think  such 
a  resolution  would  secure  peace  in  this  manner.  Mr. 
McCook  has  presented  certain  reasons. 

Dr.  Wylie:  Will  the  brother  take  the  platform?  The 
people  cannot  hear  the  speaker. 

The  Moderator  :  Let  me  remind  the  brother  what  we 
have  distinctly  before  us  is  not  the  expediency  of  going 
further  in  this  matter  under  the  resolution  presented,  but 
as  to  the  objections  filed,  and  therefore  as  to  the  sufficiency 
of  the  charges  and  specifications,  and  whether  they  shall 
be  considered  sufficient  to  put  the  accused  on  his  defense. 


95 


216 


Now  please,  brethren,  bear  that  in  mind  as  the  precise 
point  at  which  we  are  aiming. 

Mr.  Law  :  I  wonld  simply  like  to  say  that,  before  speak¬ 
ing  on  the  four  reasons  I  have  against  this  resolution,  that 
I  was  very  much  pleased  with  the  disavowals  and  explana¬ 
tions  of  Brother  Briggs.  I  hope  we  can  arrive  at  some¬ 
thing  more  satisfactory  than  this  resolution ;  and  the  first 
90  reason  I  object  to  it  is  because  I  am  confident  that  it  will 
not  secure  the  peace  of  the  Church.  I  do  not  wish  to 
repeat  the  reason  so  ably  presented  by  brother  McCook.  I 
only  say  in  regard  to  one  of  the  arguments  presented  by  Dr. 
Hastings  that  there  must  be  a  right  of  appeal  on  the  part  of 
either  party.  If  we  afford  the  right  of  appeal  to  the  brother 
who  is  the  defendant  in  the  case  if  the  matter  should  go 
against  him,  shall  we  deny  the  right  of  appeal  to  the 
other  party  in  the  case?  Let  me  just  mention  one  instance 
in  point.  Of  course,  when  a  criminal  or  one  accused  of  a 
crime  is  on  trial,  if  he  is  convicted  he  has  a  right  of  appeal, 
and  I  suppose  that  it  is  rare  for  the  Prosecuting  Attorney 
to  appeal,  yet  I  know  of  one  instance  in  which  the  Prose¬ 
cuting  Attorney  who  represented  the  people  appealed 
against  the  decision  which  acquitted  the  accused.  I  do 
not  think  we  can  deny  the  right  of  appeal  to  one  of  the 
original  parties  in  the  case.  It  has  already  been  decided 
by  the  Moderator  that  it  is  the  Presbyterian  Church  as 
represented  by  our  Committee.  I  will  not  dwell  on  that 
point ;  but  I  think,  even  if  we  should  deny  this,  the  mat¬ 
ter  will  come  up  under  review  by  the  Synod.  I  do  not 
think  we  really  secure  the  end  of  peace  in  this  matter.  I 
wish  to  confine  myself  to  these  specific  reasons.  I  do  not 
think  it  would  vindicate  the  cause  of  truth.  It  seems  to 
be  assumed  that  the  only  issue  is  the  question  of  heresy. 
Heresy  concerns  essential  doctrine.  Are  we  forbidden  to 
pass  censure  or  disapprove  the  remarks  of  other  brethren? 
Is  there  no  right  to  reprove  heresy?  The  other  reason  is 


217 


that  it  will  put  the  prosecutor  in  a  false  light.  I  think  it 
will  put  the  whole  Presbytery  in  a  false  light.  Suppose 
this  motion  is  carried  by  a  bare  majority.  A  large  number 
of  the  Presbytery  will  be  very  much  dissatisfied  that  our 
views  are  not  represented  in  the  matter.  Many  of  us 
would  be  glad  to  have  it  decided  that  brother  Briggs  has 
not  been  guilty  of  heresy,  and  yet  we  wish  to  condemn 
certain  utterances.  I  will  not  enter  into  any  detail  of  the 
matter,  but  the  last  reason  seems  to  me  absolutely  con¬ 
clusive,  which  is,  if  we  pass  this  resolution  it  will  be  an 
ex  parte  judgment.  We  have  heard  one  side  and  we 
refuse  to  hear  the  other. 

Dr.  John  R.  Paxton :  Mr.  Moderator,  cannot  we  have 
that  question  put.  I  do  not  think  all  this  talk  will  change 
the  vote.  We  have  made  up  our  minds.  We  had  a  test 
vote  this  morning.  We  know  how  we  are  going  to  vote 
and  the  Committee  and  its  friends  know  how  they  are 
going  to  vote,  and  I  think  the  trial  will  go  on  in  any  case, 
and  the  sooner  we  get  on  to  the  arguments  the  better  it 
will  be.  Let  the  question  be  put  now,  and  let  us  proceed 
with  the  trial,  and  be  done  with  it.  I  am  afraid  the  Com¬ 
mittee  will  have  the  Presbytery  on  its  side  any  way ;  but 
don’t  let  us  have  any  more  talk  and  let  us  take  this  vote, 
and  if  it  is  dismissed,  well.  Then  let  the  Committee  go  on 
and  prove  the  charges. 

(Several  members  call  for  the  question.) 

Dr.  Henry  M.  Field :  I  shall  not  occupy  the  time  98 
more  than  a  few  minutes.  I  want  to  say  a  word  to  Mr. 
McCook,  who  has  urged  very  strongly  that  if  this  case  be 
dismissed  an  injustice  will  be  done  to  the  Committee. 
Haven’t  we  heard  the  Committee  the  whole  afternoon; 
haven’t  they  read  their  whole  report;  haven’t  we  heard 
their  speeches  on  the  floor?  They  have  been  heard  as 
much  as  the  other  side  has  been.  One  word,  which  is 
very  pertinent :  I  am  afraid  of  this  Committee.  Under 


218 


the  extraordinary  doctrines  we  have  heard  to-day  the 
ways  of  Presbyterianism  are  past  finding  out.  We  have 
discovered  that  a  creation  is  greater  than  its  creator,  and 
we  have  created  a  Committee  over  which  we  have  no 
power  whatever.  We  are  in  an  omnibus,  and  they  have 
the  reins,  and  will  drive  us  whither  they  will.  That  is 
the  very  reason  that  I  want  to  ask  the  Presbytery  to  stop 
here.  If  we  can  stop  it,  let  us  stop  it  now.  As  I  was 
looking  up  to  you,  sir,  I  was  thinking  of  that  noble  man 
who  occupied  this  platform  for  so  many  years — Dr.  Hamil¬ 
ton — and  who,  after  that  scene  in  the  General  Assembly, 
wrote  to  me  that  he  was  sorry  that  he  could  not  be  there 
to  aid  his  friend  Prof.  Briggs,  and  said  these  words,  which 
I  hope  every  reporter  will  take  down  and  print :  “I  have 
learned  more  of  the  height,  and  depth,  and  length,  and 
breadth  of  the  word  of  God  from  Prof.  Briggs  than  from 
all  other  men  put  together.” 

(Cries  of  C£  Question.”) 

99  Dr.  Shearer :  Mr.  Moderator - 

The  Moderator :  Dr.  Shearer  has  a  right  to  be  heard. 

Dr.  Shearer  :  We  want  light  by  a  presentation  of  the 
whole  case  before  deciding  how  to  vote.  It  is  right  to  seek 
all  the  information  obtainable.  Ho  barriers  should  be 
erected  to  exclude  the  light,  and  the  questions  should  not 
be  withdrawn  without  allowing  each  member  to  consider 
and  pass  upon  it,  so  that  the  members  may  reach  a  correct 
conclusion,  whatever  this  judgment  may  be.  To  vote 
summarily  at  this  stage  to  dismiss  these  charges  would 
be  practically  rendering  a  decision.  That  is  a  negative 
method.  By  negative  method,  we  would  enter  judgment 
in  an  informal  way  upon  methods  vital  to  the  Church 
Catholic — the  Church  Presbyterian — the  Presbyterian  and 
every  other  interest  closely  identified  with  it. 

A  Member  :  Is  that  an  amended  resolution  as  Dr.  Sutton 
has  offered  it? 


219 


Dr.  Shearer :  I  propose  to  give  some  reasons  why  the 
case  should  not  be  dismissed. 

The  Moderator :  In  view  of  the  paper  that  has  been 
presented — the  resolution — you  will  keep  to  that. 

Dr.  Shearer :  Our  good  brother,  Dr.  Hastings,  but  a 
few  moments  ago,  Mr.  Moderator,  did  appeal  to  the  ques¬ 
tion  of  action  of  the  former  Presbytery,  and  the  peace  and 
purity  of  the  Church,  and  that  has  been  a  common  theme  100 
throughout  the  whole  discussion ;  and  I  think  there  are 
reasons — the  honor  of  the  Presbytery  was  said  to  be  in¬ 
volved  ;  and  I  propose  to  give  some  reasons  why  the  honor 
and  peace  would  be  greatly  promoted  by  going  forward 
with  this  case  to  the  end ;  and  I  would  say  frankly,  stat¬ 
ing  that  as  a  judge,  I  have  made  no  determination  what 
vote  I  shall  cast  in  the  matter.  I  want  to  know  the  facts ; 
and  I  give  these  reasons  for  our  examining  the  facts,  and 
allowing  the  facts  to  be  presented  in  their  fullness  so  that 
we  can  judge.  Now  if  the  brethren  will  allow  me — I  may 
be  out  of  order,  and  if  so  will  submit,  in  all  civil  and  eccle¬ 
siastical  governments  principles  are  first  enacted,  and  sub¬ 
sequently  the  laws  are  applied.  The  enactments  or  the 
restrictive  law,  rule  or  regulation  is  in  itself  prima  facie 
evidence  of  an  alleged  or  real  evil,  to  prevent  which  the 
law  is  formed.  Now,  turning  to  the  action  of  the  General 
Assembly  in  1882,  we  find  on  page  92  of  the  minutes  the 
following  resolution :  ‘  ‘  That  in  view  of  the  crude  and 
dangerous  utterances  of  many  of  the  secular  and  religious 
papers,  periodicals  and  books,  and  some  of  the  pulpits  of 
the  land,  resulting  from  the  introduction  and  prevalence 
of  German  Mysticism  and  ‘  higher  criticism, 5  and  of 
philosophic  speculation  and  so-called  scientific  evolution ; 
in  view  of  the  alarming  defection  from  the  faith  of  the  Gospel, 
both  in  this  country  and  abroad,  and  which  seriously  threat-  p)l 
ens  our  own  beloved  Church ;  and  in  view  of  the  fact  that 
the  revealed  word  of  God,  the  Holy  Scripture,  is  the  only 


220 


infallible  rule  of  faitli  and  practice,  and,  therefore,  the 
only  hope  of  mankind, — your  Committee  recommend  that 
this  Assembly,  in  the  name  of  the  great  Head  of  the 
Church,  solemnly  warn  all  who  give  instruction  in  our 
Theological  Seminaries  against  inculcating  any  views,  or 
adopting  any  methods,  which  may  tend  to  unsettle  faith 
in  the  doctrine  of  the  divine  origin  and  plenary  inspira¬ 
tion  of  the  Scriptures,  held  by  our  Church,  or  in  our 
Presbyterian  system  of  doctrine,  either  by  ignoring  or 
depreciating  the  supernatural  element  in  divine  revelation, 
or  by  exalting  human  conjecture  and  speculation  above 
historical  and  divine  facts  and  truths ;  or  by  applying 
hypotheses  of  evolution,  unverified  and  incapable  of  veri¬ 
fication,  to  the  word  of  the  living  God.”  It  can  be 
affirmed  that  the  man  in  this  case  was  in  that  Assembly. 
If  such  a  statement  needs  corroboration,  we  appeal  to 
the  evidence  of  the  resolution  of  this  investigation  accord¬ 
ing  to  the  tenets  of  the  higher  criticism  taken  in  1883.  In 
the  General  Assembly  this  resolution  was  passed  when 
brother  Crosby  was  chairman  of  the  Committee  on  Theo¬ 
logical  Seminaries.  Would  that  his  voice  then  heard  may 
be  heard  in  his  own  resolution,  as  follows:  “  We  are 
constrained  also  to  make  another  suggestion  which  will 
not  be  taken  amiss  by  right  minds.  It  is  doubtless  neces¬ 
sary  that  heretical  views  should  be  made  known  to  the 
102  students  of  theology,  that  heretical  authors  should  be 
quoted,  but  care  should  be  taken  that  these  heresies 
should  not  be  presented  in  more  attractive  form  than  the 
truth,  and  there  these  authors  should  not  be  commended 
and  their  works  urged  upon  the  students’  reading.  Em¬ 
phasis  should  be  laid  upon  the  truth  as  against  such 
heresies  and  heretics  and  errors  exposed  and  denounced 
with  earnestness  and  zeal.  There  is  to-day  a  vast  amount  of 
infidel  and  semi-infidel  writing  by  professed  commentators 
on  the  Holy  Scripture,  on  Scripture  history,  especially  in 


221 


Germany.  These  make  light  of  God’s  Word  and  treat  the 
sacred  volume  as  a  mass  of  rubbish.  Only  condemnation 
of  such  writers  should  be  heard  from  a  seminary  professor, 
whatever  may  be  the  secular  learning  of  the  infidel  authors 
or  their  rationalistic  imitators.  It  is  not  wise  or  righteous 
dealing  with  young  candidates  for  the  Gospel  ministry  to 
commend  this  poison  to  their  minds  without  undertaking 
to  instil  instincts  of  caution.  Truth  must  be  emphasized 
and  all  falsehood  unsparingly  condemned.  Excuse  or 
apology  for  these  errors  or  any  modification  of  their  hein¬ 
ousness,  coming  from  a  professor,  is  tantamount  to  an 
approval  in  the  practical  effect  on  a  young  student. 

A  Member  :  I  object,  that  it  is  not  competent  to  this  103 
body  to  discuss  anything  but  Dr.  Briggs’  demurrer.  We 
must  pass  on  that  if  it  is  denied,  and  then  dismiss  the  case 
if  it  is  not,  and  then  we  will  hear  the  merits  of  the  case. 
Brethren  are  making  speeches  on  the  merits  of  the  case, 
when  the  case  is  not  before  the  house. 

The  Moderator  :  Your  point  of  order  is  well  taken.  Dr. 
Shearer  will  confine  himself  specifically  to  the  question  of 
the  objections  presented  this  morning  as  the  ground  of  his 
remarks. 

Dr.  Shearer  :  I  presume  that  when  the  reasons  on  one 
side  were  presented  by  Dr.  Hastings,  I  might  present  them 
on  the  other  side.  I  will  give  my  reasons  on  my  side.  There 
has  been  great  liberty  allowed ;  and  if  the  Moderator,  when 
I  state  what  I  intend  to  bring  to  your  attention,  says  I  am 
out  of  order,  I  certainly  will  take  my  seat.  What  I  pro¬ 
pose  to  say  is,  that  this  fama  clamosa  which  was  given  in 
Dr.  Crosby’s  resolution  had  appeared  in  these  three 
Assemblies  within  a  period  of  ten  years,  had  come  into  our 
ears  by  the  action  of  nearly  eight  Presbyteries,  and  had 
come  into  our  ears  and  before  our  eyes  by  the  wide  dissem¬ 
ination  of  these  views  through  the  secular  and  religious 
press — the  religious  press  of  our  own  denomination  and  other 


222 


104  denominations  in  this  and  other  countries,  gave  it  an 
extensive  publication ;  and  when  the  matter  was  taken  up, 
as  we  believed  legally,  by  the  Presbytery,  some  of  us 
believed  that  the  charges  would  pass  the  members  of  this 
Presbytery  almost  in  a  majority,  and  that  has  been  re¬ 
ferred  to,  as  the  Moderator  will  remember,  by  a  former 
speaker.  We  were  almost  on  the  point  of  passing  such  a 
resolution  to  virtually  say  to  the  Assembly  “  hands  off, 
we  intend  to  take  care  of  this  case.” 

A  Member  :  I  must  beg  leave  to  call  the  member  to 
order.  He  is  dragging  up  records  of  the  Assembly  with¬ 
out  proving  that  they  have  any  reference  to  Dr.  Briggs. 

The  Moderator  :  Dr.  Shearer  will  confine  himself  to  the 
matter  under  consideration.  Let  me  just  remind  you  of 
the  way  in  which  the  resolution  is  before  us.  “  In  consid¬ 
eration  of  the  objections  filed  by  Dr.  Briggs  as  to  the 
sufficiency  of  the  charges  and  specifications  in  form  and 
legal  effect ,  the  case  against  him  be  and  hereby  is  dis¬ 
missed.” 

Dr.  Shearer:  We  have  given  a  pledge  that  we  would 
take  up  and  consider  this  case  fairly,  and  I  hold  that  the 
present  status  is  one  in  which  we  are  not  in  a  position,  in 
view  of  these  resolutions,  in  view  of  the  things  that  are 
offered — in  view  of  all  this,  we  are  not  in  a  position  rightly 

105  to-day  to  pass  such  a  motion,  because,  as  I  have  already 
said,  we  put  ourselves  in  a  wrong  position  before  the 
world,  and  it  will  not  satisfy.  We  cannot  stifle  these 
rumors  against  our  brother.  We  offer  him  the  vindication 
of  this  Presbytery,  and  the  only  way  to  vindicate  him  is 
by  an  orderly  trial  in  which  he  shall  know  definitely  the 
decision.  If  we  have  not  made  these  charges  definite 
enough  we  should  amend  them.  The  world  will  not  be 
satisfied,  and  the  Church  will  not  be  satisfied,  and  we  can¬ 
not  be  satisfied,  and  we  will  have  no  basis  on  which  to  pass 
such  a  resolution.  It  will  be  interpreted  on  these  grounds 


223 


as  we  have  put  them ;  it  will  be  interpreted  as  a  resolu¬ 
tion  or  certificate  of  good  character  without  a  thorough 
investigation,  and  there  is  wrong  in  it,  because  our  Com¬ 
mittee  stands  ready  to  present  the  corrections  and  offer 
proof  in  support  of  them ;  and  we  cannot  afford  as  a  Presby¬ 
tery  to  dismiss  them.  I  love  the  brother.  He  has  my 
brotherly  love  in  the  matter,  and  I  challenge  any  member 
in  the  Presbytery  that  has  more  love  for  him.  I  challenge 
any  one  that  would  more  gladly  vote  for  a  complete  vindi¬ 
cation  ;  and  I  say  any  vindication  we  could  make  by  sti¬ 
fling  this  inquiry,  by  laying  it  on  the  table,  will  never  bring 
peace,  but  will  simply  open  up  the  arena  of  conflict  in  the 
whole  Church,  and  we  will  have  to  meet  it  again  and  again. 

How  will  it  come  up?  Why,  the  book  there  from  which 
we  read  that  article  stating  our  tenets— you  remember  we  106 
quoted  that  several  times  to-day— it  says  the  party  and  the 
Judicatory.  "We  are  not  here  to  find  fault  with  how  the 
book  reads.  The  book  has  been  made  and  we  are  obliged 
to  follow  it.  Suppose  we  pass  the  other  resolution?  The 
question  will  go  up  by  appeal  or  complaint  of  the  body  of 
the  members  here  who  do  not  seem  to  be  agreed.  We  are 
really  in  that  position  in  which  we  are  only  adding  trouble 
for  ourselves  and  increasing  the  conflict  throughout  the 
Church  to  enter  into  such  a  motion  as  is  now  befoie  us , 
and  in  the  interest  of  the  very  objects  which  my  good 
friend  Dr.  Hastings  here  gave  us,  in  the  interest  of  peace, 
not  in  the  interest  of  a  few,  but  in  the  interest  of  the 
whole  Presbyterian  Church,  in  the  interest  of  the  whole 
body  of  Christ,  I  would  say  let  us  end  this  trial  by  spend¬ 
ing  one  or  two  more  days  in  looking  this  fully  in  the  face, 
and  let  us  see  if  we  cannot  give  a  certificate  of  entire  exon¬ 
eration,  and  let  us  give  him  a  certificate  of  perfect  exoner¬ 
ation. 

Mr.  McCook :  I  would  not  detain  you  a  moment,  but 
two  of  my  highly  esteemed  friends,  Drs.  Hastings  and 


224 


Field,  have  referred  to  my  name  in  what  they  have  said 
about  the  Committee.  I  simply  wish  to  put  the  position 
of  the  Committee  exactly  right.  They  assume  no  power ; 
they  assume  no  authority  other  than  that  given  by  the  book. 
The  theory  of  this  Book  of  Discipline  was  to  keep  out  of 

107  trials  of  this  kind  all  personal  animosity ;  that  if  the  action 
was  brought  by  a  Judicatory  it  should,  under  Section  10 
of  the  Book,  be  begun  in  the  name  of  the  Presbyterian 
Church  in  the  United  States  of  America.  Under  Section 
11,  it  is  provided,  not  that  the  Presbytery  might ,  but  the 
Presbytery  shall  appoint  a  Committee  to  conduct  the  pro¬ 
ceedings  in  all  its  stages.  It  provides  that  those  serving 
on  the  Committee,  as  well  as  the  accused  and  Counsel,  are 
prohibited  from  voting  on  the  final  issue.  The  theory 
was  that  the  Presbytery  sitting  in  a  body  were  judges, 
were  removed  from  passion  or  from  feeling,  or  even,  as  my 
brother  Field  would  say,  not  as  a  jury,  but  they  were 
sitting  in  such  a  way  as  to  be  purely  a  court,  and  to  be 
above  any  possible  x>ersonal  feeling;  consequently  the 
Committee  was  appointed  and  designated  the  Prosecuting 
Committee,  and  was  also  so  designated  in  the  42d  rule  of 
this  body ;  and  we  seek  to  keep  the  Presbytery  on  the 
high  plane  of  judges  or  of  jury,  which  require  those  of  us 
who  are  less  fortunate,  and  who  have  such  a  disagreeable 
duty  to  perform,  to  have  in  fact  no  vote  on  this  case. 
The  Presbytery  named  a  Committee,  and  that  vested  the 
Committee  with  authority.  They  assume  nothing  more 
than  what  the  book  gave  them ;  and  if,  in  the  wisdom  of 
this  body,  we  should  be  thrown  out  of  court,  it  might  be 
a  great  relief  to  some  of  us,  but  in  view  of  your  ordina¬ 
tion  vows  I  do  not  see  how  that  can  be  done. 

Dr.  Wylie :  I  should  like  to  present  this  resolution  as 

108  a  substitute  for  Dr.  Sutton’s:  “  The  Presbytery  of  New 
York  having  listened  to  the  paper  of  Rev.  Charles  A. 
Briggs,  D.D.,  and  without  approving  of  the  positions 


225 


stated  in  his  inaugural  address,  at  the  same  time  desiring 
earnestly  the  peace  and  quiet  of  the  Church,  deem  it  best 
to  dismiss  the  case.”  I  present  that  as  a  substitute. 

Dr.  Sutton  :  If  that  is  presented  as  an  amendment  I 
accept  it. 

Dr.  Jno.  R.  Paxton  :  I  move  as  a  substitute  for  the 
motion  now  before  the  house:  “ Resolved ,  that  the  paper 
of  Dr.  Briggs,  with  the  report  of  the  Committee  contain¬ 
ing  charges  and  specifications,  and  the  resolution  of  Dr. 

Van  Dyke  or  its  substitute  now  before  this  house,  be 
referred  to  a  special  committee  appointed  by  the  Modera¬ 
tor  to  report,  at  the  next  stated  meeting  or  monthly  meet¬ 
ing  of  the  Presbytery,  what  to  do  with  the  case.  That 
very  able  paper  of  Prof.  Briggs  we  cannot  carry  in  our 
mind.  The  Committee  ought  to  have  that  paper  and 
these  charges  before  them.  They  should  consider  the 
reply  to  the  charges  and  specifications,  and  take  that 
paper  in  their  possession  and  prayerfully  consider  both 
papers,  and  then  come  to  us  and  say  whether  or  not  to  go 
on  with  the  trial ;  and  I  would  urge  that  as  a  substitute, 
that  a  special  Committee,  and  an  earnest,  pious  Committee, 
be  appointed. 

Dr.  Van  Dyke :  I  want  to  accept  that  amendment  very  109 
promptly.  We  all  want  it.  That  resolution,  as  amended, 
is  in  the  best  possible  shape  that  could  be  gotten  to  secure 
this  result.  Let  us  now  vote  on  it.  I  cannot  accept  Dr. 
Paxton’s  substitute. 

Dr.  John  Hall :  Some  of  the  brethren  will  remember 
that  at  a  former  meeting  (Dr.  Hall  was  requested  to  speak 
louder).  I  only  began  to  say  to  my  co-Presbyters  that 
at  a  former  meeting  of  the  Presbytery,  I  took  the  liberty 
to  make  a  suggestion  in  the  form  of  a  motion,  which  I 
thought,  on  the  one  hand,  would  promote  the  interest  of 
peace,  and  on  the  other  hand,  protect  us  against  any 
imputation  of  favoring  what  our  Church  does  not  believe ; 


226 


but  that  motion  did  not  commend  itself  to  all  of  my 
brethren,  so  it  fell  to  the  ground.  Now,  I  do  not  think 
we  could  do  better  in  the  interest  of  peace  than  to  accept 
the  resolution,  but  inserting  two  clauses  of  which  I  think 
the  ultimate  effect  would  be  to  guard  us  as  a  Presbytery 
against  imputations,  and  at  the  same  time  do  no  injustice 
to  the  brother  who,  as  the  accused,  is  before  us.  At  the 
proper  point  in  the  resolution  that  has  been  read,  I  would 
put  in  the  words,  ‘ 4  in  view  of  the  declarations  made  by 
Dr.  Briggs,  touching  his  loyalty  to  the  Holy  Scriptures 
and  the  Westminster  Standard,  and  by  his  disclaimer  of 
2io  the  interpretation  given  to  some  of  his  words.” 

Mr.  Spencer  L.  Eillier  :  We  want  to  vote  intelligently, 
and  I  want,  to  say  one  word  about  this  last  resolution  at 
just  this  time  in  the  case.  I  have  been  one  of  those  who 
have  voted  persistently  that  we  should  enter  upon  a  trial 
that  would  show  what  Hr.  Briggs  means.  I  find  myself 
now  in  this  position :  We  came  here  and  have  heard  a  full 
and  to  me  a  very  satisfactory  explanation  of  just  what  he 
believes ;  and  I  am  prepared,  on  the  strength  of  the  state¬ 
ment  that  Hr.  Briggs  has  made,  to  acquit  him  entirely,  to 
vote  that  the  proceeding  at  this  time  be  dropped.  If  we 
are  confined  to  the  former  resolution,  which  is  practically 
a  demurrer,  we  have  to  vote  simply  to  say  that  for  reasons 
that  appear  to  us,  objections  that  may  be  taken  to  this 
paper,  that  we  drop  the  proceedings  on  that  ground ; 
while  I  am  persuaded  many  of  us,  like  myself,  in  the 
interest  of  peace  and  justice  and  righteousness,  feel  that  we 
want  this  matter  adjusted  and  finished  on  a  proper  basis. 
We  want  to  give  a  full  and  free  and  thorough  expression 
of  our  faith  and  confidence  to  Hr.  Briggs  in  what  he  has 
said ;  and  therefore  I  am  delighted  with  this  last  resolu¬ 
tion,  either  as  presented  by  Hr.  Wylie  or  as  presented  by 
Hr.  Hall.  I  am  content  to  vote  that  I  am  not  satisfied 
with  this  paper.  I  think  there  is  no  reason  to  try  Hr. 


227 


Briggs.  I  want  to  go  further — I  want  to  say  that  this  dear 
brother,  although  at  a  late  date — oh !  if  he  had  only  come  ~ 
out  and  said  long  ago  what  he  has  said  now.  We  wanted  111 
him  to  stand  np  and  say  substantially  what  he  has  said 
now,  and  he  has  said  it  now,  and  I  believe  it  thoroughly, 
and  I  believe  when  this  motion  is  taken  that  it  will  end 
this  thing  now  thoroughly  and  completely  and  entirely ; 
and,  therefore,  I  rise  to  speak  and  express  myself,  satisfied 
that  I  have  expressed  the  conviction  and  opinions  of 
others ;  and  I  hope'  when  we  vote  it  will  not  be  on  a 
technicality,  but  we  will  come  to  the  court,  and  know  this 
thing,  and  vote  on  it  with  the  light  we  now  have,  and 
show  that  we  are  entirely  satisfied  that  the  trial  end  here 
and  now. 

(Cries  of  ‘  ‘  Question  5  5 ;  and  calls  for  the  reading  of  the 
resolution  as  now  prepared.) 

The  Moderator :  The  Moderator  understands  you  to 
accept  Dr.  Wylie’s  resolution  instead  of  yours. 

Dr.  Van  Dyhe :  No;  we  accept  it  as  an  addition;  we 
accept  it  as  an  amendment. 

The  Moderator  :  It  will  require  a  moment  to  combine 
it. 

Dr.  Sutton :  While  the  audience  is  waiting,  having 
offered  that  resolution,  that  we  may  settle  this  case  on  the 
merits  of  the  objection,  I  still  insist  upon  it  that  that  is 
the  projjer  proceeding  in  a  court  like  this.  We  are  sitting 
as  a  court,  not  as  a  town  meeting.  The  brother  has  been 
arraigned  according  to  the  forms  of  law  in  this  court;  he  H2 
has  appeared ;  he  has  presented  his  objections  to  the  forms 
of  process  as  being  insufficient  and  not  according  to  the 
forms  of  law.  Now,  sir,  as  a  court  we  are  bound  not  to 
allow  this  call  to  prevail  of  “  Peace,  peace  ”  when  there  is 
no  peace.  We  must  take  it  on  its  merits.  If  it  is  not  of 
avail,  dismiss  it,  and  I  will  hold  it  to  be  valid.  I  have 
not  been  present  with  you  many  months,  but  I  listened  this 


228 


morning  to  his  objections,  and  I  am  satisfied,  according  to 
our  Book  of  Discipline,  that  his  objections  are  valid,  and 
that  he  deserves  a  dismissal  of  his  case  on  the  basis  of  that 
demurrer.  And  now,  sir,  this  is  all  we  need.  We  cannot 
patch  up  a  peace.  Part  of  the  time  we  are  discussing  the 
demurrer,  part  of  the  time  we  are  talking  on  the  merits  of 
the  question,  part  of  the  time  we  are  appealing  to  the 
senses  of  the  brethren  and  deprecating  the  lack  of  peace. 
We  are  going  to  have  peace.  The  truth  is  mighty  and 
will  prevail. 

(A  Member  rises  to  a  point  of  order  and  asks  for  the 
motion  before  the  house.) 

Dr.  Sutton  :  I  insist  upon  it  this  is  the  proper  proceed¬ 
ing  in  this  court,  that  we  should  have  some  documentary 
evidence  to  send  up  to  the  higher  court.  What  will  you 
have  to  send  up  to  the  higher  court  if  you  beg  the  matter 
off? 

Dr.  Van  Dy~ke :  His  amendment  was  accepted  and 
113  incorporated.  They  are  simply  explanations  of  the  prin¬ 
ciples  I  put  in  there ;  they  specify  what  are  the  facts 
presented. 

Dr.  Sutton :  Dr.  Briggs  stands  before  this  Court,  not  as 
.  pleading  for  forgiveness ;  he  stands  here  having  answered 
the  proceeding  in  a  legal  manner,  and  he  demands  justice 
upon  his  answer,  and  this  is  what  the  Court  should  rule 
upon,  I  submit.  Let  us  rule  upon  it.  I  am  a  conserva¬ 
tive  of  the  conservatives,  but  I  am  clearly  convinced  that 
he  has  a  right  to  the  dismissal  of  his  case  on  the  ground  of 
the  objections  he  raises. 

(Question  again  called  for.) 

Dr.  W.  T.  G.  Sliedd  :  I  wish,  Mr.  Moderator,  very  briefly 
to  give  my  reasons  why  I  cannot  vote  for  the  disposal  of 
this  question. 

The  Moderator :  Will  Dr.  Shedd  please  come  forward 
so  that  he  can  be  heard  readily. 


229 


Dr .  Shedd:  The  amendments  make  no  particular  differ¬ 
ence  with  the  original  motion,  and  therefore  what  I  have  to 
say  will  be  pertinent.  I  object  to  dismissing  this  whole 
subject  in  silence,  in  the  first  place  because  it  is  to  be  done 
on  the  supposition  that  the  statements  which  have  been 
made  by  the  accused  party,  this  defendant,  are  satisfactory 
to  all,  satisfactory  to  this  Presbytery.  Now,  my  ground  is 
that  there  has  been  no  explanation  made  by  Dr.  Briggs 
that  at  all  changes  the  teaching  of  the  inaugural  discourse.  114 
He  has  said  that  he  does  not  believe  in  the  doctrine  of  pur¬ 
gatory,  but  he  has  not  said  that  he  does  not  believe  that 
part  of  the  human  family  are  redeemed  in  the  middle  state : 
that  stands.  He  has  said  that  he  does  not  hold,  when  he 
affirms  that  there  are  three  great  fountains  of  divine 
authority,  that  he  co-ordinates  the  Church  and  Reason  and 
the  Bible.  Now  I  would  like  an  opportunity,  and  the 
others  would  like  the  same  thing,  to  be  able  to  discuss 
that  point  here  in  open  Court  and  see  whether  that  is  the 
fact.  For  one  I  do  not  believe  it  is.  I  believe  that  he  co¬ 
ordinates,  and  in  the  whole  discourse  there  co-equalizes, 
and  if  I  had  an  opportunity  I  would  endeavor  to  prove  it. 

Dr.  Brown :  Would  Dr.  Shedd  allow  me  to  read  a  few 
extracts  ? 

Dr.  Shedd:  I  am  only  giving  the  reason  for  being 
opposed  to  dismissing  that  matter.  I  do  not  want  to  be 
muzzled,  and  there  are  others  in  the  Presbytery  who  would 
like  the  whole  subject  discussed  in  a  frank  Christian 
manner,  and  find  out  for  ourselves  whether  that  docu¬ 
ment  that  was  read  to  us  this  morning  relieves  our  diffi¬ 
culty.  Now,  Mr.  Moderator,  there  is  a  great  difference  of 
opinion  in  this  Presbytery  in  regard  to  the  orthodoxy  or 
heterodoxy  of  that  discourse.  Many  believe  that  it  is 
orthodox  and  could  be  squared  to  the  Westminster 
standard ;  and  there  is  a  respectable  quantity  that  do  not  2 15 
believe  it  is  orthodox,  and  that  it  could  not  be  squared 


230 


with  the  Westminster  standards  any  more  than  you  could 
square  the  circle  ;  and  it  will  not  do  to  affirm  that  theie  is 
no  difference  of  opinion,  and  that  we  can  all  agree  to  the 
orthodoxy  of  that  inaugural  address  and  repel  the  charge 
of  heterodoxy;  I  for  one  cannot  do  that  thing  conscien¬ 
tiously.  Dr.  Briggs  and  I  have  been  associated  for  many 
years,  and  I  have  nothing  but  the  pleasantest  relations 
with  him.  I  have  been  associated  with  the  faculty  of 
Union  Seminary  also,  but  I  think  he  and  they  are  mistaken 
in  saying  that  that  inaugural  discourse  accords  with  the 
standard  of  the  Presbyterian  Church ;  and  I  for  one  would 
like  an  opportunity  at  the  proper  time  to  give  my  reasons 
for  my  belief.  Now,  Mr.  Moderator,  if  you  dismiss  this 
whole  thing  I  have  no  opportunity.  The  whole  thing  is 
dismissed,  and  virtually  we,  who  have  at  a  very  great  sac¬ 
rifice  of  personal  feeling,  taken  the  ground  that  there  is 
heresy  in  that  discourse,  are  left  without  any  opportu¬ 
nity  of  giving  a  reason  for  the  belief  that  is  in  us ;  and  for 
that  reason  I  say  the  Presbytery  ought  not  to  dodge  that 
question,  and  ought  not  to  muzzle  the  mouth  of  anybody, 
but  to  bring  the  whole  subject  into  open  Presbytery,  and 
to  have  the  thing  fully  discussed  in  a  Christian  way. 

210  There  is  no  reason  for  hard  feeling  or  angry  feeling.  So 
far  as  I  am  concerned  I  have  no  feeling  on  the  matter  fur¬ 
ther  than  I  would  have  in  discussing  a  mathematical  prop¬ 
osition.  The  question  is,  whether  it  is  right  or  wrong. 
It  should  not  be  dismissed,  especially  after  appointing  a 
Committee,  and  they  have  done  a  great  deal  of  hard  work 
and  brought  the  subject  before  us  for  discussion.  Let  us  not 
give  way  all  they  have  done.  It  prevents  this  Presbytery 
from  expressing  its  views.  It  prevents  two  great  divisions 
in  this  Presbytery,  which  correspond  with  the  divisions  in 
the  Presbyterian  Church,  from  giving  their  views.  It  is  a 
great  mistake  to  suppose  that  the  Presbyterian  Church  is 
agreed  not  to  differ  on  this  subject.  There  is  a  great  dif- 


231 


ference  in  sentiment ;  and  my  belief  is  that  the  difference  in 
sentiment  that  appears  in  this  Presbytery  is  quite  different 
from  what  it  is  in  the  Church  at  large.  Here  we  are  quite 
evenly  divided,  and  Dr.  Briggs  and  his  friends  can  well 
afford  to  have  his  views  canvassed. 

Mr.  W.  M.  Martin  :  I  rise  to  a  point  of  order  here. 

He  is  not  discussing  the  point  which  is  before  us  now. 

The  point  is,  that  Dr.  Briggs’  paper  read  here  to-day  is 
only  an  explanation.  In  view  of  that,  and  not  in  view  of 
the  inaugural,  because  he  has  a  right  to  his  own  judgment 
in  the  matter.  As  I  understand  it,  he  should  confine  him¬ 
self  to  the  point  that  is  in  that  resolution.  117 

The  Moderator :  Dr.  Shedd  will  confine  himself  to  the 
point. 

Dr.  Shearer  :  Was  not  this  last  amendment  that  was 
proposed  by  Dr.  Hall,  giving  a  statement  that  in  view  of 
his  acknowledgments  we  do  so  and  so  ?  That  brings  Dr. 
Shedd  certainly  in  order. 

Dr.  Shedd :  My  sole  reason  is  this,  that  if  you  dismiss 
this  case,  the  members  of  the  Presbytery  have  no  oppor¬ 
tunity  of  presenting  their  views.  That  is  the  whole  of 
my  first  objection.  You  are  putting  a  gag  into  the  mouth 
of  some  of  us  who  would  like  to  speak  of  it.  Now,  the 
second  objection  is  this :  It  would  be  better  for  Dr.  Briggs 
to  have  this  matter  go  before  the  Presbytery  of  New  York 
and  be  thoroughly  discussed  and  a  decision  given  then, 
than  to  put  a  blanket  over  the  whole  thing  and  do 
nothing.  If  you  pass  this  resolution  and  dismiss  this 
it  will  be  understood,  and  it  will  be  said  very  often  that 
they  were  afraid  to  come  to  trial — they  were  afraid  to 
have  the  thing  discussed  in  open  Presbytery.  Now,  I  say 
if  that  be  done,  and  this  Presbytery  dismisses  the  whole 
thing,  and  it  should  be  appealed  to  the  Synod,  he  will 
stand  a  much  poorer  chance  before  the  Synod,  in  that  case, 
than  he  will  if  the  Presbytery  of  New  York  has  made  a 


232 


decision  after  discussion.  Suppose  this  was  thoroughly 
118  discussed  and  the  Presbytery  after  discussion  say  he  is  or¬ 
thodox,  we  will  not  condemn  his  view ;  then  he  stands 
before  the  Synod  on  a  much  better  ground  than  he  will  if 
he  comes  before  the  Synod  with  this  record,  that  the  Pres¬ 
bytery  dodge  the  question  which  he  and  his  friends 
brought  forward  by  a  non-discussion.  On  the  other  hand, 
suppose  the  Presbytery  of  New  York  bring  up  the  heresy 
matter,  and  it  is  decided  to  be  contrary  to  the  doctrines, 
then  he  will  stand  better  than  in  the  other  case,  because  he 
will  appear  before  them  as  one  who  has  manfully  stood 
before  his  peers,  the  Presbytery,  and  undergone  an  exam¬ 
ination  ;  and  it  may  be  the  Synod  will  reverse  the  action 
of  the  Presbytery ;  so  my  second  reason  is,  that  it  would 
be  better  for  Dr.  Briggs,  for  the  following  reason,  that 
the  Presbytery  and  all  of  us  have  an  opportunity  of  giv¬ 
ing  the  reasons  for  the  belief  we  have,  either  for  or  against, 
and  consequently  that  our  brother  himself  stands  on  a  bet¬ 
ter  ground  than  on  the  other.  I  shall  vote  in  opposition 
to  this  motion. 

The  Clerk  then  read  the  combined  resolution,  as  follows  : 
“  Resolved ,  that  the  Presbytery  of  New  York,  having 
listened  to  the  paper  of  the  Rev.  Charles  A.  Briggs,  D.D., 
in  the  case  of  the  Presbyterian  Church  in  the  United 
States  of  America  against  him,  as  to  the  sufficiency  of  the 
charges  and  specifications  in  form  and  legal  effect ;  and 
without  approving  of  the  position  stated  in  his  inaugural 
address,  at  the  same  time  desiring  earnestly  the  peace  and 
quiet  of  the  Church,  and  in  view  of  the  declarations  made 
by  Dr.  Briggs  touching  his  loyalty  to  the  Holy  Scriptures 
and  the  Westminster  standards,  and  of  his  disclaimers  of 
interpretations  put  on  some  of  his  words,  deems  it  best  to 
dismiss  the  case,  and  hereby  does  so  dismiss  it.” 

Dr.  Sutton  :  What  resolution  is  that,  sir? 

The  Moderator  :  That  is  your  old  friend  in  a  different  form. 


233 


Dr.  Van  Dyke :  I  can  only  say,  how  that  baby  has 
grown. 

The  Moderator  :  Dr.  Hall’s  addition  is  in  this  paper, 
with  Dr.  Wylie’s. 

A  Member  :  Dr.  Sutton  has  not  accepted  that. 

The  Moderator :  Dr.  Van  Dyke  accepted  Dr.  Sutton’s 
amendment,  of  which  the  first  part  is  formed  and  the  last 
part  is  Dr.  Hall’s. 

Dr.  Robinson  :  Dr.  Hall  has  caused  that  amendment  to 
be  put  on  Dr.  Sutton’s  motion,  and  either  Dr.  Sutton 
must  accept  it,  or  not,  that  is  our  question,  sir. 

The  Moderator  :  Dr.  Van  Dyke  is  the  original  mover 
and  he  has  accepted,  and  Dr.  Wylie  has  presented  a  sug¬ 
gestion  which  is  adopted. 

Dr.  Hall :  All  I  can  say  is  that  my  idea  in  the  matter 
was  this :  seeing  there  was  a  resolution  before  the  body, 
it  seemed  advantageous  to  the  truth  and  to  the  Church  120 
and  to  ourselves  that  we  should  put  in  the  two  statements 
I  have  presented,  and  it  has  been  read.  I  do  not  make  a 
motion.  I  simply  tried  to  strengthen  our  position  in  the 
way  of  truth  and  right. 

Dr.  Brown :  I  would  like  to  say  one  or  two  words,  called 
out  by  my  honored  tutor  and  friend.  As  to  what  Dr.  Shedd 
has  said  on  this  floor,  in  regard  to  his  second  reason,  there 
need  be  no  discussion.  It  was  distinctly  stated  by  Dr. 

Van  Dyke  that  the  motion  was  not  made  in  the  interest 
of  Dr.  Briggs,  but  in  the  interest  of  this  Presbytery  and  of 
the  Church  at  large.  No  single  word  further  need  be  said 
there.  In  regard  to  his  first  point  I  would  like  to  say  that 
no  restriction  whatever  is  put  upon  any  member  of  the 
Presbytery  in  explaining  his  views  to  as  great  length  as  he 
pleases  in  any  proper  way.  The  public  prints  are  open. 

It  is  simply  a  question  as  to  whether  this  Presbytery,  in 
view  of  all  these  facts,  sees  fit  to  arrest  the  debate  and 
dismiss  the  case.  And  further,  when  he  began  his  re- 


284 


marks,  when  lie  said  that  Dr.  Briggs  did  not  touch  this 
point,  I  arise  to  state  the  facts  right.  I  shall  ask  the 
liberty  of  quoting  three  passages.  The  first  i^ssage  is 
this,  from  the  objections  filed  this  morning  to  the  charges 
and  specifications,  on  page  15:  “If  I  had  been  charged 
with  teaching  second  probation  or  any  probation  whatever 
after  death,  I  might  have  pointed  to  several  of  my  writ- 
121  ings  in  which  this  doctrine  is  distinctly  disclaimed.  If 
the  doctrine  of  purgatory  had  been  imputed,  or  regenera¬ 
tion  after  death,  or  transition  after  death  from  the  state  of 
the  condemned  to  the  state  of  the  justified,  any  and 
all  of  these  could  have  been  disproved  from  my  writings. 
If  any  insinuations  had  been  made  that  I  had  taught  that 
the  redeemed  enter  the  Middle  State  guilty  and  sinful, 
this  could  easily  have  been  refuted.  But  no  such  doc¬ 
trines  are  specified.  No  specific  doctrine  whatever  is 
mentioned.  There  is  nothing  in  the  specification  that 
can  be  tested  by  the  defendant  or  challenged  by  the 
Presbytery.”  The  only  other  point  specified  by  Dr. 
Shedd  was  in  reference  to  the  Bible,  the  Church  and  the 
Reason.  In  the  appendix  to  a  second  edition  of  the  inau¬ 
gural  address,  upon  which  the  Committee  have  based  their 
charges,  are  contained  these  words  (p.  85),  when  it  was 
said,  “There  are  historically  three  great  fountains  of 
divine  authority — the  Bible,  the  Church  and  the  Reason. 
I  did  not  say,  and  I  did  not  give  any  one  the  right  to  infer 
from  anything  whatever  in  the  Inaugural  Address,  or  in 
any  of  my  writings,  that  I  co-ordinated  the  Bible,  the 
Church  and  the  Reason.”  Then  again,  from  the  objec¬ 
tions  filed  this  day  on  page  20:  “  The  reason  is  a  great 
fountain  of  divine  authority,  and  yet  not  an  infallible  rule 
of  faith  and  practice.  The  Church  is  a  great  fountain  of 
divine  authority,  and  yet  not  an  infallible  rule  of  faith 
and  practice.  The  Bible  is  a  great  fountain  of  divine 
authority,  and  it  is  also  the  only  infallible  rule  of  faith 


235 


and  practice.  Here  are  two  different  statements  of  truths 
that  may  be  embraced  under  a  more  general  truth,  but  to 
affirm  the  one,  as  to  Bible,  Church  and  Reason,  that  they  122 
are  great  fountains  of  divine  authority,  is  not  to  deny 
that  the  Bible  is  the  only  one  of  which  the  other  can  be 
affirmed,  viz.,  that  the  Scriptures  are  the  only  infallible 
rule  of  faith  and  practice.  When  God  speaks  through 
the  conscience  He  speaks  with  divine  authority,  and  the 
conscience  becomes  a  great  fountain  of  divine  authority ; 
but  the  conscience  does  not  become  thereby  an  infallible 
rule  of  faith  and  practice.  God  speaks  through  the  holy 
sacrament  with  divine  authority,  and  the  sacrament  of  the 
Church  is  then  a  great  fountain  of  divine  authority ;  but 
it  does  not  become  thereby  an  infallible  rule  of  faith  and 
practice.  I  affirm  that  I  have  never  anywhere,  or  at  any 
time,  made  any  statement  or  taught  any  doctrine  that  in 
the  slightest  degree  impair  what  I  have  ever  regarded  as  a 
cardinal  doctrine,  that  the  Holy  Scriptures  are  the  only 
infallible  rule  of  faith  and  practice.”  Those  are  simply 
questions  of  fact. 

The  Moderator :  The  question  is  before  you.  Are  you 
ready  for  the  question? 

Dr.  Booth  called  for  the  resolution. 

The  Moderator :  The  resolution  is  called  for. 

Dr.  Elliot  calls  for  the  resolution,  and  it  is  again  read 
by  Mr.  Hoadley. 

Dr.  Andrew  Shiland  called  for  the  ayes  and  nays  and, 
on  the  motion  being  put  for  the  ayes  and  nays,  it  was  123 
declared  carried.  But  the  statement  was  made  that  the 
motion  was  not  understood  at  the  time  it  was  put. 

The  Moderator :  It  is  conceded  the  motion  was  not 
understood.  The  motion  is  on  calling  for  the  ayes  and 
nays. 

Dr .  R.  R.  Booth :  I  do  not  feel  satisfied  with  this  ad¬ 
justment,  but  I  should  be  content  to  acquiesce  if  the 


236 


brethren  so  decide  in  their  present  vote,  because  this  case 
must  go  to  the  Synod  and  it  must  come  back  to  us  in  some 
form,  and  therefore,  perhaps,  the  most  rapid  and  feasible 
way  out  of  the  present  embarrassment  is  to  hear  the 
brethren  on  their  vote,  and  to  dismiss  the  matter  until  we 
hear  from  the  Synod  of  New  York,  which  has  adjourned 
to  meet  at  the  call  of  the  Moderator  to  take  this  case  up ; 
so  I  shall  take  no  steps  and  interpose  no  objection,  but  I 
trust  the  brethren  will  sustain  the  call  for  the  ayes  and 
nays. 

The  Moderator :  Those  in  favor  of  taking  the  vote  by 
yea  and  nay  calling  the  roll  will  say  aye;  opposed,  no. 
Carried. 

A  Member :  There  ought  to  be  one  suggestion  made 
which  will  help.  I  have  been  told  by  the  highest  authority 
that  it  is  illegal  and  unconstitutional  for  the  Synod  to 
adjourn  as  it  did,  and  it  cannot  adjourn  to  meet  at  such  a 
call  as  that;  therefore  there  will  be  no  meeting  for  the 
year.  Whether  that  is  right  or  not  I  do  not  know ;  but  I 
124  am  told  by  the  highest  authority  that  it  is  right. 

Dr.  Booth :  The  Synod  is  adjourned  to  meet  at  least 
once  a  year. 

Mr.  Hoadley :  There  are  two  or  three  men  who  came 
in  a  little  late,  and  it  seems  to  me  that  they  should  have 
the  right  to  vote  if  they  desire  to  do  so.  I  think  Mr. 
Rutan  and  Mr.  Ruliffson  are  also  in. 

Dr.  Booth :  I  hope  they  will  be  allowed  to  vote,  as  in 
the  nature  of  the  case  our  present  proceedings  are  some¬ 
what  formal.  I  trust  all  these  brethren  who  have  this  case 
clearly  in  mind  will  be  allowed  to  vote,  and  so  move  you. 

The  motion  was  seconded  and  carried. 

Dr.  Chapin  was  also  included  in  this  privilege. 

Dr.  Birch :  The  Committee  call  attention  to  the  irregu¬ 
larity  in  allowing  persons  now  who  have  not  been  men¬ 
tioned  before  to  vote.  We  might  bring  a  dozen  in  in  that 


237 


way.  It  is  too  late.  We  call  attention  to  the  irregu¬ 
larity. 

Dr .  Van  Dyke :  If  the  Committee  protest  we  do  not 
want  those  gentlemen  to  vote. 

The  Moderator :  If  any  make  objection  that  shuts  out 
the  names.  Those  brethren  have  been  here  during  the 
morning  and  afternoon ;  they  only  came  in  a  little  late. 

Dr.  Birch:  We  object. 

A  Member :  Are  we  obliged  to  adjourn  at  5  o’clock? 

The  Moderator :  No,  there  is  no  limit  as  to  the  hour 
for  remaining.  Before  we  proceed,  perhaps  we  had  better 
be  clear  as  to  the  matter  of  the  votes  of  the  brethren 
named. 

A  Member  :  These  men  cannot  vote  if  the  Committee 
objects. 

The  Moderator  ;  We  voted  to  receive  a  number  of  those 
who  came  in  during  the  morning,  and  no  objection  was 
made  then. 

Dr.  Birch:  The  Committee  does  object  to  the  names 
thus  mentioned. 

A  Member :  Mr.  Moderator,  one  of  the  names  men¬ 
tioned — Mr.  Kuliifson — was  mentioned  this  morning,  and 
he  was  accepted. 

Dr.  Birch  :  I  have  no  objection  to  his  name. 

Mr.  J.  B.  Shaw :  I  hope  the  Committee  will  not  press 
that  objection.  One  of  the  gentlemen  came  in  late  this 
morning.  These  other  gentlemen  came  in  only  twenty 
minutes  late,  and  they  were  in  all  the  morning  session, 
and  they  heard  the  opening  speeches,  and  heard  the 
report ;  and  I  think  it  is  only  fair  to  allow  them  to  come  in. 

Dr.  Birch:  We  will  object  to  names  reported  just 
before  a  vote  is  to  be  taken.  When  the  parties  come  in 
and  report  at  once  I  do  not  object,  but  they  should  be  re¬ 
ported. 

Bev.  Frederick  N.  Butan :  My  card  has  been  in  the 


238 


126  hands  of  the  Moderator  since  early  in  the  service.  I  came 
in  early  in  the  service. 

Dr.  Birch :  The  objection  is  withdrawn  to  Mr.  Rutan. 

Dr.  J.  S.  Ramsay :  I  would  like  to  ask  you,  when  you 
are  taking  the  roll,  if  a  person,  as  is  usual  at  the  close  of 
the  summing  up  of  the  trial,  can  be  privileged  to  briefly 
give  the  reason  for  his  vote.  I  presume  a  good  many  are 
exceedingly  anxious  to  get  home  to  wife  and  children,  and 
although  some  may  object  to  this,  I  think  some  of  us  who 
have  been  trying  to  get  five  minutes  on  the  floor  should 
have  that  privilege. 

The  Moderator :  With  a  very  simple  restriction  not  to 
take  too  much  time. 

Dr.  Hastings :  May  I  ask,  as  the  brethren  rise,  that 
they  will  give  their  names.  Some  of  the  men  voted  by 
proxy  at  the  last  meeting. 

The  Moderator :  The  brethren  will  rise  when  they  vote. 

In  accordance  with  the  vote,  the  roll  call  was  had,  with 
the  following  result : 

Geo.  Alexander,  aye;  S.  D.  Alexander,  no;  Andrew  C. 
Armstrong,  Jr.,  aye ;  A.  P.  Atterbury,  aye ;  W .  W .  Atter- 
bury,  aye;  Lewis  W.  Barney,  aye;  William  H.  Beach 
227  (no  answer) ;  Nicholas  Bj  erring,  aye ;  Robert  R.  Booth, 
nay  (I  will  vote  no,  in  the  interest  of  Dr.  Briggs,  which  I 
think  ought  to  be  paramount.  I  will  say  no.  I  must  vote 
no,  because  I  think  the  process  is  not  according  to  the 
spirit,  and  even  the  letter  of  our  discipline.  I  vote  only 
one  no  for  these  reasons) ;  Thomas  S.  Bradner,  no ;  Fran¬ 
cis  Brown,  aye;  Walter  D.  Buchanan,  no  (and  I  simply 
want  to  say  this,  I  vote  this  way,  for  the  reasons  named 
by  Dr.  Booth,  while  I  differ  from  him  at  this  point,  only 
that  I  do  not  go  into  the  merits  of  the  case  at  all  as  to  the 
exact  status  of  Prof.  Briggs  here  to-day,  but  in  recogni¬ 
tion  of  the  wisdom  or  unwisdom  of  giving  up  his  trial  at 
this  time.  My  conscience  will  not  permit  me  to  vote  for  a 


239 


resolution  which  is  condemnatory  of  brother  Briggs,  and 
which  I  believe,  before  the  public,  will  be  looked  upon  as 
a  desire  on  the  part  of  this  Presbytery  simply  to  solve 
this  entire  matter,  while  this  is  not  at  all  the  expression 
of  my  attitude  on  this  question.) 

Dr.  Van  Dyke :  I  think  the  brethren  should  make  no 
explanations  and  think  none  are  in  order,  as  it  is  simply 
opening  the  question  again. 

A  Member :  Mr.  Moderator,  you  have  ruled  already 
that  they  are  in  order. 

Roll  call  resumed. 

William  T.  Carr,  aye;  James  Chambers,  aye;  Henry B. 
Chapin,  aye:  Edward L.  Clark,  aye ;  Nathaniel  W.  Conk-  128 
ling,  aye;  John  B.  Devins  (I  desire  to  be  excused  from 
voting  for  the  reason  given  both  times  before  the  Presby¬ 
tery.  I  ask  to  be  excused.  On  motion,  Mr.  Devins  was 
excused). 

Ira  S.  Dodd,  aye;  D.  Stuart  Dodge,  aye;  Conrad 
Doench  (no  vote  given) ;  Thomas  Douglas  (no  vote  given) ; 
John  H.  Edwards,  aye;  Frank F.  Ellinwood,  aye;  Henry 
B.  Elliot.  (This  vote,  if  it  is  carried,  will  finish  the  whole 
case.  I  desire  to  say  a  few  words  lest  I  should  be  misun¬ 
derstood  by  the  body.  I  belong  to  no  party  in  this  case,  but 
I  have  had  views  in  reference  to  the  whole  question  which 
are  known  to  some.  I  should  have  preferred,  and  came 
to  the  house  expecting  that  this  case  should  be  carried 
through  in  due  form  of  procedure ;  that  these  objections 
raised  by  Dr.  Briggs  should  be  duly  answered,  and  the 
whole  case  discussed  in  due  form ;  and  yet,  in  view  of  all 
the  circumstances  of  the  case,  in  view  of  his  own  article, 
in  view  of  the  provisions  made  by  this  book,  the  caveat 
urged  in  the  midst  of  this  resolution — in  view  of  all  these 
facts  I  vote  aye.) 

Henry  M.  Field,  aye ;  William  T.  Elsing,  aye ;  Arthur 
Folsom,  no;  Jesse  F.  Forbes,  aye;  Herbert  Ford,  aye; 


240 


Charles  E.  Gillett,  aye  ;  Henri  L.  Grandlienard,  aye ; 
John  Hall  (I  vote  aye  as  on  the  whole  the  best  thing  under 
the  circumstances,  not  that  I  vote  with  my  whole  heart. 

129  I  would  like  much  if  the  Presbytery  expressed  its  disap¬ 
proval  of  the  ambiguous  teaching  in  a  Professor’s  chair). 

A.  W.  Halsey,  aye;  W.  E.  Harshaw,  aye;  Thomas  S. 
Hastings,  aye ;  Charles  E.  Herring,  aye ;  Edward  W. 
Hitchcock,  aye ;  James  H.  Hoadley,  aye ;  Samuel  M. 
Jackson,  aye;  Augustus  D.  L.  Jewett,  no;  Joseph  E. 
Kerr,  aye;  Albert  B.  King,  no;  Bartolomew  Krusi,  aye; 
Sidney  G.  Law  (Mr.  Moderator,  I  would  like  to  give  an 
explanation  of  my  vote.  I  voted  on  Dr.  Hall’s  resolution 
in  the  first  place  as  offered  in  a  former  meeting,  and  I 
immediately  saw  my  mistake,  that  it  was  passing  judg¬ 
ment  without  trial,  and  I  could  not  consistently  vote  now 
£  £  aye,  ’  ’  for  this  resolution,  although  I  think  ultimately 
I  should  have  voted  for  it.  If  there  was  a  full  trial,  if 
both  sides  had  been  heard,  I  think  I  should  have  voted 
for  it ;  but  on  the  principle  I  give,  that  it  is  really  an  ex 
parte  judgment,  I  vote  no). 

Theodore  Leonhard,  aye;  Joseph  P.  Lestrade,  aye; 
John  C.  Lowrie,  no;  Daniel  E.  Lorenz,  aye;  William  M. 
Martin,  aye;  William  J.  Macdowell,  aye;  Francis  H.  Mar¬ 
ling,  aye;  Henry  T.  McEwen,  aye;  James  H.  Mcllvaine, 
aye ;  Alex.  McKinney,  aye ;  Alex.  McLean  (I  shall 
have  to  vote  no  under  Dr.  Briggs’  statement,  because  it 
implies  censure  without  any  trial.  We  have  entered  on  a 
trial  and  had  arrested  it,  and  the  resolution  implies  a  cen¬ 
sure  of  Dr.  Briggs,  and  I  shall  have  to  vote  no). 

130  Horace  G.  Miller  (In  view  of  Dr.  Briggs’  excellent 
address  this  morning  and  his  Christian  manner  I  would  like 
to  vote  aye,  but  I  believe  that  the  vote  ‘ ‘  aye  ’  ’  means 
more  trouble  to  Dr.  Briggs  and  more  trouble  to  the  Church  ; 
and  I,  therefore,  vote  no). 

George  J.  Mingins,  aye;  James  C.  Nightingale,  no;  D. 


241 


H.  Overton,  aye;  George  Nixon,  no;  Charles  H.  Park- 
hurst,  aye;  Levi  H.  Parsons,  no;  John  R.  Paxton,  aye; 
William  M.  Paxton  (I  have  to  vote  no,  simply  because  it 
strikes  me  the  action  which  you  propose  to  take  is  no  vin¬ 
dication  of  Dr.  Briggs  whatever,  but  it  will  throw  a  cloud 
of  suspicion  over  him  during  the  rest  of  his  life.  If  this 
matter  had  been  brought  to  trial  and  Dr.  Briggs  cleared, 
then  his  way  would  be  clear  to  any  seminary  in  the  land ; 

but  under  the  present  circumstances  he  will  be  under  sus- 
picion  as  long  as  lie  lives). 

Edward  P.  Payson,  no;  Geo.  S.  Payson,  aye:  Vincent 
Pisek,  aye ;  Geo.  L.  Prentiss,  aye ;  Wendell  Prime,  no ; 
Hugh  Pritchard,  aye;  James  S.  Ramsay  (Mr.  Moderator 
I  am  constrained  unfortunately  to  be  in  the  minority,  and 
I  am  on  constitutional  grounds  obliged  to  vote  no.  While 
m  ful1  sympathy  with  the  words  that  I  heard  this  morning 
from  Dr.  Briggs,  and  they  gave  me  the  thought  and  hope 
and  belief  that  when  this  trial  was  carried  through  I  could 
have,  the  privilege  of  conscientiously  voting  for  his  full 
acquittal ;  but  I  do  not  care  for  a  compromise.  I  wish  one 
thing  or  the  other.  Dr.  Briggs,  in  pushing  the  privilege  131 
accorded  to  him  in  the  22d  verse  of  this  fourth  chapter,  I 
think,  pushed  it  too  far,  and  entered  into  the  merits  of  the 
question.  The  Committee  of  Prosecution  was  not  per¬ 
mitted  to  answer  as  wide  as  that,  and  therefore  there 
seems  to  me  to  be  a  manifest  injustice ;  and  I  would  also 
vote  on  the  ground  that  there  is  furnished  by  this  rapid 
pushing  without  a  discussion  to  a  conclusion — that  it  fur¬ 
nishes  a  ground  for  appeal,  that  an  appeal  may  be  taken, 

when  there  is  a  hastening  to  a  decision  before  the  testimony 
is  fully  taken). 

Charles  S.  Robinson  (I  was  from  the  beginning  intensely 

°P??-Std  thlS  trial  0f  Dr-  Brig&s>  although  I  have  been 
published  in  the  papers  as  a  leader  of  the  opposition.  I 

have  told  the  Board  or  Dr.  Mcllvaine  and  Dr.  Briggs  so, 


242 


but  they  were  determined  if  it  was  to  be  done  it  should  be 
done  in  an  orderly  way.  I  have  been  keeping  record,  I 
think,  for  the  first  time  in  my  life,  so  as  to  see  the  ayes 
hadn’t  it.  If  they  hadn’t  it  I  should  have  voted  with  them 
in  order  to  take  it  to  the  Synod  or  anywhere  out  of  this. 
So  I  vote  no). 

Stealy  B.  Rossiter,  aye;  Albert  G.  Ruliffson,  aye; 
Frederick  N.  Rutan,  aye;  Robert  F.  Sample  (did  not  vote, 
as  he  is  on  the  Committee). 

Joseph  Sanderson,  no;  Joseph  A.  Saxton,  aye;  Philip 
Schaflf,  aye;  Adolphus F.  Schauffler,  aye ;  James  E.  Sentz, 
aye;  J.  Balcom  Shaw,  aye;  Geo.  L.  Shearer,  no;  William 
!39  G.  T.  Shedd,  no ;  Andrew  Shiland,  aye ;  Wilton  M.  Smith, 
aye ;  John  M.  Stevenson,  no ;  Charles  A.  Stoddard,  aye. 

Dr.  J.  Ford  Sutton  :  Mr.  Moderator,  what  resolutions 
are  we  voting  for? 

The  Moderator  :  The  resolution  has  been  read,  sir.  You 
are  called  to  vote. 

Dr.  Sutton  :  Please  to  read  the  resolution. 

The  Moderator :  Do  you  wish  to  vote? 

Dr.  Sutton  :  The  clerk  will  read  the  resolution . 

(The  resolution  was  read  by  Mr.  Hoadley.) 

The  Moderator  :  How  do  you  vote,  sir? 

Dr.  Sutton  :  There  is  no  such  resolution  before  the  house. 

The  Moderator :  How  do  you  vote? 

Dr.  Sutton  :  There  is  a  resolution  back  of  that,  offered  by 
myself,  which  has  been  swallowed  up  in  the  resolution 
which  has  been  read.  I  stand  for  order,  Mr.  Moderator, 
and  I  protest  that  the  only  thing  before  the  house  is  the 
amendment  to  the  amendment.  It  is  not  my  resolution. 
I  vote  no,  sir. 

Dr.  Booth:  He  is  perfectly  right  on  the  point,  Mr. 
Moderator. 

The  Moderator:  You  are  too  late;  we  are  taking  the 


243 


vote,  and  we  are  now  in  the  midst  of  taking  the  vote  and 
your  point  of  order  is  not  in  order. 

Dr.  Sutton :  I  appeal  to  the  house. 

Roll-call  continued. 

Alex.  W.  Sproull,  no;  Geo.  L.  Spining,  aye;  C.  L. 
Thompson,  aye;  John  J.  Thompson,  no;  Marvin  R.  Vin¬ 
cent,  aye;  Fred.  E.  Voegelin,  aye;  A.  L.  R.  Waite  (Mr. 
Moderator,  in  view  of  the  disclaimer  by  Prof.  Briggs  I 
would  like  to  vote  yea;  but  in  view  of  the  compromise, 
which  I  have  taken  into  account,  I  vote  no). 

Geo.  S.  Webster,  aye;  Erskine  N.  White,  aye;  John 
T.  Wilds,  aye;  David  G.  Wylie,  aye. 

Roll-call  of  Elders. 

M.  M.  Brown,  aye;  Geo.  M.  Jaques,  no;  John  C. 
Tucker,  no ;  Wdlliam  A.  Richmond,  no ;  Andrew  Robin¬ 
son,  no;  Theron  G.  Strong,  aye;  David  T.  Peek,  no; 
Robert  Beggs  (Mr.  Moderator,  for  the  reasons  mentioned 
by  Dr.  Booth  I  vote  no) ;  Richard  H.  Bull,  no ;  H.  Zincke, 
aye;  Fred’k  Blume,  no;  John  Stewart,  aye;  Samuel 
Reeve,  aye;  Francis  Rogers,  aye;  J.  Moorhead,  no; 
Thomas  S.  Strong,  aye;  Charles  H.  Woodbury,  aye; 
Henry  Bruning,  aye ;  M.  E.  Fox,  aye ;  I.  M.  Dyckman, 
aye;  Thomas  Anderson,  no;  Henry  Q.  Hawley,  aye; 
Sidney  TVhittemore,  aye:  Geo.  C.  Day,  aye;  Cleveland 
H.  Dodge,  aye;  William  M.  Onderdonk,  no;  H.  B. 
Caithness,  aye;  Edward  W.  Thompson,  aye;  William 
Mitchell,  aye;  William  R.  Worrall,  no;  Robert  Gentle, 
aye;  William  A.  Wheelock,  aye;  Sidney  F.  Wilcox,  134 
aye;  C.  P.  Leggett,  aye;  J.  B.  Lindsay,  aye. 

Dr.  Hall :  While  the  vote  is  being  made  up  I  make  a 
suggestion.  I  think  we  ought,  in  justice  in  all  directions, 
to  express  our  approval  of  the  earnestness  of  the  Com¬ 
mittee  on  which  we  impose  so  much  work. 

Dr.  Van  Dyke  :  I  would  like  to  call  attention  to  the 
fact  that  there  is  one  part  of  my  motion  on  the  table  that 


244 


the  Committee  be  discharged  with  the  thanks  of  the  Pres¬ 
bytery.  If  they  object  to  the  motion  I  will  withdiaw  it. 

(Motion  seconded.) 

Dr.  Booth :  I  understand  Dr.  V an  Dyke  makes  a 
motion  to  discharge  the  Committee.  I  make  the  point  of 
order  that  no  such  motion  can  be  in  order  in  this  house 
without  a  reconsideration  of  the  motion  made.  It  was 
passed  on  the  statement  of  the  discipline  that  the  Com¬ 
mittee  represents  the  Presbyterian  Church  in  the  United 
States  of  America.  That  was  decided  by  a  vote  of  64  to 
57  this  morning,  and  can  only  be  made  now  on  this  floor 
by  a  reconsideration  of  two-thirds. 

Dr.  Van  Dyke :  I  will  submit,  if  you  rule  it  out  of 

order. 

Dr.  Rail :  My  motion  did  not  involve  the  question  of 
discharge,  simply  that  it  was  a  simple  expression  of  our 
appreciation  of  the  efficiency  and  fidelity  of  the  Com¬ 
mittee.  (Motion  seconded.) 

135  Mr.  Woodbury:  Allow  me  to  move  an  amendment  to 
it,  which  is  this  :  “  Resolved,  that  the  Committee  of  Pros¬ 
ecution  be,  and  the  same  is  hereby,  discharged  with 

the  thanks  of  this  Presbytery.” 

The  Moderator  :  That  motion  is  not  in  order. 

Mr.  Woodbury:  I  move  it  as  a  substitute  for  the 

motion. 

The  Moderator  :  It  cannot  be  entertained,  sir,  because 
we  should  have  to  reconsider  by  a  vote  of  two-thirds  the 
vote  already  taken. 

Mr.  Woodbury:  I  think  that  is  open  to  debate  before 
the  action  becomes  final.  Although  this  Committee  rep¬ 
resents  at  first  the  Presbyterian  Church  in  the  United 
States,  there  is  nothing  in  the  Book  of  Discipline  that  I 
can  see  that  authorizes  that  Committee  to  continue  its 
existence  after  the  prosecution  has  ceased  to  exist.  If 
this  vote  that  we  have  taken  here  this  afternoon  results  in 


245 


the  closing  of  the  case  there  is  no  longer  any  prosecution 
to  conduct. 

The  Moderator  :  I  beg  to  call  the  brother  to  order. 
That  point  was  raised  distinctly  this  morning,  and  the 
Moderator  was  appealed  from,  and  the  appeal  was  sus¬ 
tained,  and  unless  there  is  a  reconsideration  of  the  vote 
by  a  vote  of  two-thirds  of  the  members  present  on  a 
motion  made  by  some  one  who  voted  in  the  majority,  it 
cannot  be  entertained. 

Dr.  Birch  :  I  want  to  speak  to  that  point  of  order. 

The  gentleman  forgets  there  are  Superior  Courts,  and  this  136 
case  is  not  ended  by  the  dismissal  of  this  Presbytery,  and 
there  is  no  other  way  of  bringing  it  before  the  Synod  or 
before  the  Assembly  according  to  this  rule,  and  I  hope 
the  Presbytery  will  stick  to  the  book,  and  we  ask  you  not 
to  legislate  against  the  book.  He  ignores  the  fact  that 
there  are  Superior  Courts - 

The  Moderator :  It  is  not  the  question  of  the  Courts, 
but  the  province  of  the  Committee ;  and  I  am  obliged  to 
decide  as  I  have  under  the  action  that  has  been  taken. 

The  question  now  is  on  the  adoption  of  Dr.  Hall’s  motion, 
that  is,  to  extend  to  the  Committee  an  expression  of  our 
appreciation  of  the  efficiency  and  fidelity  of  the  Commit¬ 
tee.  (The  motion  was  then  put  and  carried.)  The  Stated 
Clerk  bids  me  give  notice  of  the  regular  meeting  of  our 
Presbytery  on  next  Monday  at  3  o’clock,  and  it  would  be 
proper,  at  that  time,  for  the  Committee  appointed  on  the 
protest  that  has  been  made  to  present  their  report,  and 
the  brethren  will  be  kind  enough  to  be  patient  in  order 
that  we  may  have  the  minutes  of  this  meeting,  which  are 
very  important,  presented,  and  see  that  they  are  correct 
before  we  adjourn ;  and  then,  I  hope  we  will  all  be  present 
at  the  adjournment,  and  we  will  close  with  prayer  by  Dr. 

Hall. 

Dr .  Booth  :  Let  it  be  proclaimed  that  at  the  adjourned 


246 


meeting  some  action  may  be  taken  by  the  members  on  the 
1B7  floor.  Will  it  be  necessary  to  give  notice  of  a  complaint? 

The  Moderator :  A  complaint  may  be  lodged  within  ten 
days  from  this. 

Dr.  Booth  :  When,  in  the  next  meeting? 

The  Moderator  :  The  next  meeting  is  on  Monday.  The 
Moderator  would  substitute  the  name  of  Dr.  Charles  S. 
Robinson  for  Dr.  Ramsay,  to  answer  the  protest  of  Dr. 
Van  Dyke. 

Dr.  Thompson  :  Mr.  Moderator,  while  the  vote  is  being 
counted,  would  you  allow  the  Chairman  of  the  Sunday 
School  Committee  to  give  a  notice.  (Notice  was  given.) 

138  A  Member :  I  want  to  know  whether  the  question  of  re¬ 
vision  comes  up  at  the  next  meeting. 

The  Moderator:  Dr.  Yan  Dyke  will  report  on  the 
question  of  revision  at  the  next  meeting.  The  Commit¬ 
tee’s  report  will  then  be  read. 

Dr.  Van  Dyke :  It  will  be  made  on  Monday,  certainly, 
and  it  is  hoped  there  will  be  a  full  attendance,  because  it  is 
an  important  matter.  If  there  are  any  other  members  who 
wish  to  sustain  my  view  of  the  constitutionality  of  the 
Prosecuting  Committee,  I  wish  they  would  notify  me.  If 
there  are  any  who  wish  to  join  me  in  the  protest  that  is 
to  be  made,  I  hope  that  they  will  give  me  their  names. 

The  Moderator :  Dr.  Elliot  will  serve  in  the  place  of 
Dr.  Robinson,  to  answer  the  protest  made  by  Dr.  Yan 
Dyke,  since  Dr.  Robinson  is  not  in  the  house. 

Dr.  Elliot :  I  prefer  to  be  excused. 

The  Moderator :  I  think  you  can  serve  with  Dr.  Stod¬ 
dard.  The  Committee  will  consist  of  Drs.  Elliot  and 

139  Stoddard,  and  Mr.  Beggs.  Dr.  Elliot  will  please  serve  in 
the  matter. 

Dr.  Brown :  May  I  simply  give  notice  that  I  shall  be 
very  glad  to  know  the  names  of  any  others  who  desire  to 
join  in  the  complaint  on  which  notice  was  given  from  the 


247 


decision  of  the  Presbytery  this  morning  on  the  ques¬ 
tion. 

Dr.  Briggs  :  May  I  ask  if  I  am  rightly  recorded  as  giv¬ 
ing  notice  of  the  appeal  on  that  question,  because  I  have 
to  give  notice  in  view  of  the  possibility  of  appeal  from  the 
other  party  on  this  question,  in  order  that,  if  my  case 
should  eventually  come  before  the  General  Assembly,  I 
must  appeal  with  it — I  must  appeal  from  the  action  which 
the  Presbytery  took  this  morning.  I  simply  give  notice 
of  the  appeal. 

Mr.  Hoadley :  This  is  the  first  we  have  heard  of  it. 

Dr.  Briggs  :  I  gave  notice  of  it  this  morning. 

Dr.  Elliot :  At  what  time  is  this  appeal  to  be  presented? 

The  Moderator :  On  Monday  next. 

The  vote  was  then  declared  as  follows :  138  votes  were 
cast ;  94  ayes,  39  nays. 

The  Moderator  :  Won’t  you  kindly  keep  order.  Please 
let  us  not  hurry  away.  We  must  have  our  minutes  in 
proper  shape.  We  have  not  concluded  this  whole  business 
yet,  gentlemen. 

Dr.  Birch :  On  behalf  of  the  Committee  I  give  notice  of 
appeal  to  the  Synod. 

The  Moderator :  Dr.  Briggs  has  already  given  notice  of 
appeal  from  the  decision  this  morning. 

The  Minutes  were  then  ordered  to  be  read  for  final 
approval.  Mr.  Hoadley  began  the  reading,  but  was  inter¬ 
rupted  by  members  objecting  to  the  phraseology  of  certain 
portions. 

Dr.  Birch :  I  want  to  know  if  it  is  essential  now  that 
the  members  of  the  Presbytery  shall  stay  to  the  roll-call. 

The  Moderator  :  There  is  no  roll-call  at  the  close. 

Dr.  George  Alexander  offered  the  following  motion  :  ‘  ‘  I 
move  to  incorporate  in  the  minutes  the  statement  that  Dr. 
Woodbury  had  offered  this  motion,  and  that  it  was 
declared  out  of  order.”  (See  p.  135.) 


140 


248 


Mr.  Worrall :  I  make  a  point  of  order  that  that  had  no 
place  in  the  records,  that  it  had  never  been  before  the 
house,  because  it  was  ruled  out  of  order,  and  therefore  it 
has  no  place  in  the  minutes  of  this  meeting.  Will  you 
decide  my  point  of  order  and  say  whether  I  am  right? 

The  Moderator  :  As  a  matter  of  usage  it  has  no  place  on 
the  minutes.  Now  we  have  a  motion  to  put  it  on  the 
minutes  as  an  exceptional  thing. 

141  Mr.  Worrall :  You  say  it  is  not  right  now? 

The  Moderator  :  It  is  simply  a  question  of  usage.  I 
cannot  decide  as  to  the  matter  of  right. 

Mr.  Worrall:  You  say  our  usage  is  not  to  put  that 
on? 

The  Moderator :  Yes. 

The  following  resolution  was  then  offered  by  Dr. 
Alexander:  “  Resolved,  that  the  paper  of  Mr.  Woodbury 
be  entered  upon  the  minutes  with  the  decision  of  the 
motion,  to  include  in  the  minutes  that  Mr.  Woodbury 
offered  the  following  resolution,  which  was  declared  out  of 
order  by  the  action  in  the  morning.” 

Dr.  Sutton  :  I  object  to  this  motion  on  the  ground  that 
it  is  most  unusual ;  and  second,  that  it  is  unnecessary,  the 
previous  ruling  of  the  Moderator  having  covered  that 
point. 

(A  vote  having  been  taken,  the  Moderator  was  still  in 
doubt,  and  upon  a  rising  vote  there  were  8  votes  for  placing 
the  motion  on  the  record  and  9  votes  against  the  motion, 
and  the  motion  was  declared  lost.) 

Dr.  Brown  :  I  give  notice  of  a  complaint  against  the 
decision  of  the  Moderator  that  Mr.  Woodbury’s  motion  to 
discharge  the  Committee  was  out  of  order. 

Dr.  Sutton  :  I  rise  to  a  point  of  order  that  that  admits 
the  very  thing  which  we  have  just  voted  should  not  go  on 
the  record. 

142  The  Moderator  :  The  Presbytery  has  taken  this  action. 


249 


Dr.  Alexander  has  presented  a  motion  which  was  voted 
down,  and  they  have  a  right  to  complain.  The  Synod  can 
rectify  that.  A  motion  lost  has  not  usually  been  recorded 
in  the  minutes  of  this  Presbytery,  and  therefore  this 
motion  lost  will  not  be  recorded.  The  complaint  therefore 
which  comes  before  the  Synod  will  be  a  complaint  upon 
something  not  found  on  the  record ;  and,  as  a  matter  of 
course,  the  action  of  the  Synod  is  on  the  record  of  the 
Presbytery. 

J\£t.  Woodbury :  This  is  a  direct  application  to  put  it 
on  the  record,  and  the  Presbytery  in  refusing  to  put  in  on 
the  record  has  violated  the  rights  of  the  party. 

The  Moderator :  It  will  appear  by  witnesses.  It  will 
come  on  the  records  of  the  Presbytery  for  review. 

Dr.  Sutton  :  If  it  is  an  independent  body  it  cannot  be  dis¬ 
missed. 

Dr.  Briggs  :  We  will  take  the  risk. 

Mr.  Woodbury :  It  will  be  asserted  that  the  record  is 
not  true,  because  we  claim  an  action  which  the  Presbytery 
refused  to  spread  on  the  record. 

The  Moderator  :  This  is  a  complaint  against  the  refusal 
of  the  Presbytery. 

Mr.  Woodbury  :  Yes,  and  also  against  the  refusal  of 
the  Moderator. 

The  Moderator  :  You  can  state  that  in  the  complaint 
before  the  Synod. 

Dr.  Brown  gave  notice,  on  behalf  of  himself,  and  others, 
of  a  complaint  against  the  decision  of  the  Presbytery  in 
refusing  to  enter  upon  the  records  a  motion  of  Mr.  Wood¬ 
bury  to  discharge  the  Prosecuting  Committee,  which  was 
ruled  by  the  Moderator  not  to  be  in  order  in  view  of  the 
decision  of  the  morning. 

The  minutes  of  the  Presbytery,  as  finally  approved, 
were  as  follows : 

Nov.  4th,  10  o’clock  A.  M.,  Presbytery  met  in  the  Scotch 


143 


250 


Churcli  agreeably  to  amendment,  and.  was  constituted  with 
prayer.  The  roll  was  then  called,  and  is  as  follows .  Minis¬ 
ters — George  Alexander,  S.  D.  Alexander,  Andrew  C.  Aim- 
strong,  Jr.,  Anson  P.  Atterbnry,  W.  Wallace  Atterbury, 
Lewis  W.  Barney,  Win.  H.  Beach,  Geo.  W.  P.  Birch, 
Nicholas  Bj erring,  John  C.  Bliss,  Robt.  R.  Booth,  Thomas 
S.  Bradner,  Charles  A.  Briggs,  Francis  Brown,  Walter  I). 
Buchanan,  Wm.  T.  Carr,  James  Chambers,  Henry  B. 
Chapin,  Edward  L.  Clark,  Nathaniel  W.  Conkling,  John 
B.  Devins,  Ira  S.  Dodd,  D.  Stuart  Dodge,  Conrad  Doench, 
Thomas  Douglas,  John  H.  Edwards,  Frank  F.  Ellinwood, 
Henry  B.  Elliot,  Wm.  T.  Elsing,  Henry  M.  Field,  Arthur 
Folsom,  Jesse  F.  Forbes,  Herbert  Ford,  Charles  R.  Gil- 
lett,  Henri  L.  Grandlienard,  John  Hall,  A.  Woodruff  Hal¬ 
sey,  Edward  P.  Harmond,  Wm.  R.  Harshaw,  Thomas  S. 

144  Hastings,  Charles  E.  Herring,  Spencer  L.  Hillier,  Edward 
W.  Hitchcock,  James  H.  Hoadley,  Sam’l  M.  Jackson, 
Augustus  D.  L.  Jewett,  Joseph  R.  Kerr,  Albert  B.  King, 
Bartolomew  Krusi,  Joseph  J.  Lampe,  Sidney  G.  Law, 
Theodore  Leonhard,  Joseph  P.  Lestrade,  John  C.  Lowrie, 
Daniel  E.  Lorenz,  Wm.  M.  Martin,  Wm.  J.  Macdowell, 
Francis  H.  Marling,  Henry  T.  McEwen,  James  H.  Mc- 
Ilvaine,  Alex.  McKinney,  Alexander  McLean,  James  C. 
Nightingale,  Geo.  Nixon,  D.  H.  Overton,  Charles  H. 
Parkhurst,  Levi  H.  Parsons,  John  R.  Paxton,  Edward  P. 
Payson,  Geo.  S.  Payson,  Geo.  L.  Prentiss,  Wendell 
Prime,  Hugh  Pritchard,  James  S.  Ramsay,  Charles  S. 
Robinson,  Stealy  B.  Rossiter,  Albert  G.  Ruliffson,  Fred¬ 
erick  N.  Rutan,  Robert  F.  Sample,  Joseph  Sanderson, 
Joseph  A.  Saxton,  Philip  Schaff,  A.  F.  Schauffler,  James 
E.  Sentz,  J.  Balcom  Shaw,  Geo.  L.  Shearer,  W.  G.  T. 
Shedd,  Andrew  Shiland,  Wilton  M.  Smith,  John  M.  Ste¬ 
venson,  Charles  A.  Stoddard,  A.  W.  Sproull,  Geo.  L. 
Spining,  Charles  L.  Thompson,  John  J.  Thompson,  Henry 
Van  Dyke,  Marvin  R.  Vincent,  Frederick  E.  Voegelin, 


251 


Thomas  G.  Wall,  George  S.  Webster,  Erskine  N.  White, 

John  T.  Wilds,  David  G.  Wylie. 

Elders  :  M.  M.  Brown,  Adams  Memorial;  Geo.  M. 
Jaques,  Bethany;  John  C.  Tucker,  Brick;  William  A.  145 
Richmond,  Chalmers ;  Andrew  Robinson,  Christ ;  Theron 
G.  Strong,  Covenant ;  David  T.  Peek,  Faith ;  Robert 
Beggs,  Fifth  Avenue ;  Richard  H.  Bull,  First ;  H.  Zincke, 

First  Union;  Frederick  Blume,  Fourth;  John  Stewart, 
Fourth  Avenue;  Samuel  Reeve,  14th  Street;  Francis 
Rogers,  Harlem ;  J.  Moorhead,  Knox ;  Thomas  S.  Strong, 
Madison  Avenue;  Chas.  H.  Woodbury,  Madison  Square; 
Henry  Bruning,  Madison  Street ;  M.  E.  Fox,  Morrisania ; 

I.  H.  Dyckman,  Mt.  Washington;  Thomas  Anderson, 

Hew  York ;  Henry  Q.  Hawley,  Park ;  Sidney  Whittemore, 
Phillips;  George  C.  Lay,  Puritans;  Cleveland  H.  Dodge, 
Riverdale;  William  M.  Onderdonk,  Rutgers;  H.  B. 
Caithness,  Scotch ;  Edward  W.  Thompson,  Seventh ;  Will¬ 
iam  Mitchell,  Spring  Street;  William  R.  Worrall,  13th 
Street;  Robert  Gentle,  Union  Tabernacle;  William  A. 
Wheelock,  Washington  Heights;  Sidney  F.  Wilcox, 

West ;  C.  P.  Leggett,  West  End ;  Alex.  Wilson,  West  51st 
Street;  J.  B.  Lindsay,  Westminster  of  West  23d  Street. 

The  Committee  appointed  at  the  last  meeting  to  make 
arrangements  for  the  sittings  in  the  house  reported  as 
follows : 

First. — That  pews  be  reserved  for  the  members  of  Pres¬ 
bytery,  for  Elders  belonging  to  our  city  churches  not 
voting,  and  that  the  rest  of  the  church  be  thrown  open  to 
the  general  public.  146 

Second. — That  while  earnestly  desiring  to  provide 
accommodation  for  all  who  come,  when  the  pews  are  all 
filled  the  doors  of  the  church  be  closed ;  and,  in  order  to 
preserve  quiet,  no  one  be  permitted  to  stand  in  the 
aisles. 


252 


Third. — The  Committee  also  recommend  that  an  official 
stenographer  be  employed,  and  that  Presbytery  order  a 
special  collection  in  all  the  churches  to  meet  the  necessary 
expenses  of  the  Presbytery. 

Fourth. — The  Committee  recommend,  in  case  that  pro¬ 
ceedings  extend  beyond  to-day,  that  the  sessions  be  held 
from  2  to  5  P.M.,  and  that  a  recess  be  taken  to-day  from 
1  to  2  P.M. 

By  order  of  Committee. 

David  G.  Wylie, 

Chairman . 

The  report  was  accepted  and  recommendations  adopted. 

Mr.  L.  W.  How  was,  on  motion,  chosen  by  the  Pres¬ 
bytery  official  stenographer. 

Mr.  McEwen  was,  by  unanimous  consent,  excused  to 
attend  a  funeral. 

The  general  rules  in  the  Book  of  Discipline  for  J udica- 
tories  was,  on  motion,  adopted  as  amended  in  1885  (and 
in  1887).  Presbytery  was  then  constituted  a  court,  and 
charged  by  the  Moderator. 

Dr.  Briggs  was  then  asked  by  the  Moderator  whether 
he  wanted  counsel.  He  said  he  did  not. 

The  Moderator  then  explained  the  status  of  the  ques- 
147  tion.  The  reading  of  the  minutes  of  the  last  meeting  was 
dispensed  with  by  order  of  the  Presbytery.  (Also,  the 
reading  of  the  charges  and  specifications  by  general  agree¬ 
ment,  because  they  were  before  all  in  printed  form.) 

Dr.  Briggs  being  called  upon  to  make  return  to  the 
citation,  then  proceeded  to  file  objections  against  the  suf¬ 
ficiency  of  the  charges  and  specifications  in  form  and  in 
legal  effect  (see  printed  copy  at  p.  70). 

At  this  point  the  question  as  to  the  status  of  the  Prose¬ 
cuting  Committee  was  raised.  The  Moderator  decided 


253 


that  the  Committee  was  properly  a  Committee  of  Prosecu¬ 
tion  in  view  of  the  previous  action  of  Presbytery  as 
recorded,  and  represented  the  Presbyterian  Church  in  the 
United  States  of  America,  and  was  in  the  house  as  an 
original  party  in  the  case,  under  provision  of  Section  10 
of  the  Book  of  Discipline,  and  is  now  virtually  independ¬ 
ent  of  the  Presbytery. 

An  appeal  was  taken  from  the  decision  of  the  Modera¬ 
tor.  The  question  was  divided.  The  Moderator  was  sus¬ 
tained  in  the  point  that  the  Committee  was  in  the  house 
as  a  properly  appointed  Committee  of  Prosecution.  The 
Moderator  was  sustained  in  the  point  that  the  Committee, 
as  representing  the  Presbyterian  Church  in  the  United 
States  of  America,  was  an  original  party  in  the  complaint. 

Dr.  Yan  Dyke  gave  notice  of  a  protest  in  behalf  of  him¬ 
self  and  others  against  this  action,  which  is  as  follows  : 

“In  accordance  with  the  Book  of  Discipline,  Section  105, 

I  protest  against  the  ruling  of  the  Moderator  of  the  Pres-  148 
bytery  of  New  York  in  the  case  of  C.  A.  Briggs,  that  the 
Committee,  consisting  of  G.  W.  F.  Birch,  J.  J.  Lampe,  R. 

F.  Sample,  J.  J.  McCook,  John  J.  Stevenson,  is  an  original 
party  in  the  case,  and  therefore  entitled  to  be  heard  first 
under  Rule  22,  Book  of  Discipline,  as  an  erroneous  deci¬ 
sion  on  the  following  grounds  : 

First. — In  a  case  arising  under  common  fame,  the 
Prosecuting  Committee  is  not  an  original  party.  (See  Min¬ 
utes  of  General  Assembly,  O.  S.  1859,  page  563.) 

Second. — This  Committee  has  not  been  appointed  ‘  to 
conduct  the  prosecution  in  all  its  stages  in  whatever  Judi¬ 
catory,  ’  and  there  is  no  record  of  the  Presbytery  to  show 
this  appointment.” 

(Signed)  Henry  Van  Dyke. 

Dr.  Brown  gave  notice  of  a  complaint  against  the  deci¬ 
sion  of  the  Judicatory  in  the  same  way,  and  Dr.  Briggs 


254 


gave  notice  of  an  appeal.  The  Committee  of  Prosecution 
was  then  heard  (in  an  argument  by  Prof.  Stevenson). 

Dr.  Yan  Dyke  presented  the  following  resolution  :  ‘ ‘  That 
the  Presbytery  in  the  exercise  of  the  discretion  conferred 
upon  it  by  the  Book  of  Discipline,  and  in  view  of  the  facts 
which  have  been  presented  to  us,  do  now  dismiss  the  case.  ’  ’ 

At  1  o’clock  the  Presbytery  took  a  recess. 

After  recess  the  roll  was  called,  and  by  unanimous  con- 
149  sent  of  parties  and  of  the  Judicatory,  a  number  of  names 
of  ministers  and  elders  were  added  to  the  roll  who  were 
not  present  at  the  opening  of  the  case,  but  who  were 
present  soon  after,  so  as  to  be  fully  cognizant  of  what  took 
place.  Mr.  Webster,  having  been  called  away  by  special 
duties,  was  in  the  same  way  excused. 

The  following  Committee  was  appointed  to  answer  the 
protest  of  Dr.  Yan  Dyke:  Rev.  Drs.  H.  B.  Elliot,  Chas. 
A.  Stoddard,  with  Elder  Robert  Beggs. 

The  question  before  the  house,  at  the  hour  of  recess, 
was  then  taken  up  and  amended  so  as  to  read  as  follows  : 

“  Resolved,  that  the  Presbytery  of  New  York,  having 
listened  to  the  paper  of  Rev.  Chas.  A.  Briggs,  D.D.,  in 
the  case  of  the  Presbyterian  Church  in  the  United  States 
of  America  against  him  as  to  the  sufficiency  of  the 
charges  and  specifications  in  form  and  legal  effect;  and 
without  approving  of  the  positions  stated  in  his  inaugural 
address,  at  the  same  time  desiring  earnestly  the  peace  and 
quiet  of  the  Church,  and  in  view  of  the  declarations  made 
by  Dr.  Briggs  touching  his  loyalty  to  the  Holy  Scriptures 
and  the  Westminster  standards  and  of  his  disclaimers,  of 
interpretations  put  on  some  of  his  words,  deems  it  best  to 
dismiss  the  case,  and  hereby  does  so  dismiss  it.” 

On  motion,  the  ayes  and  nays  were  ordered  and,  the  roll 
being  called,  resulted  as  follows :  94  ayes  and  39  nays. 


255 


Dr.  Hall  offered  the  following  resolution : 

‘  ‘Resolved,  that  a  vote  of  thanks  be  tendered  to  the  Com¬ 
mittee  for  its  diligence  and  fidelity.” 

Adopted. 

Dr.  Brown,  on  behalf  of  himself  and  others,  gave  notice 
of  a  complaint  against  the  decision  of  the  Presbytery  in 
refusing  to  enter  upon  the  records  a  motion  of  Mr.  Wood¬ 
bury  to  discharge  the  Prosecuting  Committee,  which  was 
ruled  by  the  Moderator  not  be  in  order  in  view  of  the 
decision  of  the  morning.* 

After  the  announcement  of  the  vote  the  Chairman  of 
the  Committee  of  Prosecution  gave  notice  of  an  appeal  to 
Synod  from  the  decision  of  Presbytery. 

Presbytery  approved  the  minutes  and  adjourned  with 
prayer,  the  Moderator  pronouncing  the  benediction. 

The  Moderator  :  Will  Dr.  George  Alexander  lead  us  in  151 
a  word  of  prayer. 

Dr.  Alexander  delivered  the  prayer,  as  follows : 

“O  merciful  God,  we  humbly  entreat  Thy  blessing 
upon  us  in  the  work  of  this  case.  We  bless  Thee  that 
Thou  hast  so  guided  our  hearts  that  we  have  been  enabled, 
in  the  spirit  of  brotherly  kindness,  to  meet  these  issues 
which  have  been  given  to  us,  and  we  pray  Thee  that, 
though  we  may  have  erred  in  judgment,  our  errors  may 
be  overruled  by  Thee,  and  that  the  glory  of  Thy  holy  name 
may  be  advanced ;  and  we  hope  that  we  have  done  that  which 
is  in  accord  with  Thy  mind ;  and  we  pray  and  we  beseech 
Thee  that  in  all  subsequent  action  connected  with  this 
case  which  has  been  before  us,  each  one  of  us  may  be 
guided  and  directed  by  that  spirit  which  is  from  above. 

We  pray  Thee  that  Thou  wilt  guide  us  in  all  our  ways 
and  in  all  our  works.  Bless  the  Church  to  which  we 
belong,  and  may  we  live  in  its  service,  and  love  it  above 
all  else.  For  Christ’s  sake  we  ask  it,  Amen.” 


*  See  pp.  22-29,  32,  33  of  these  notes. 


256 


The  Moderator  pronounced  the  benediction  and  the 
Presbytery  adjourned. 

I  hereby  certify  that  the  foregoing  type-written  notes, 
pp.  1  to  151  inclusive,  with  the  corrections  therein  made 
by  my  pen,  are,  to  the  best  of  my  knowledge  and  belief,  a 
full  and  true  report  of  all  that  was  said  and  done  at  this 
meeting. 

New  Yoek,  Nov’r  18,  ’91. 

(Signed)  John  C.  Bliss, 

Moderator. 


257 


Notice  of  Complaint  (I.) 

Notice  of  Complaint,  to  be  made  before  the  higher  judi¬ 
catory  by  the  undersigned  and  others  agreeing  with  him,  is 
hereby  filed,  in  accordance  with  Sections  83  and  84  of  the 
Revised  Book  of  Discipline,  against  the  action  of  the 
Presbytery  of  New  York,  November  4,  1891,  in  sustain¬ 
ing,  by  a  vote  of  64  to  57,  the  ruling  of  the  Moderator,  as 
follows : 

1.  That  the  Committee  which  prepared  charges  against 
Dr.  Briggs  (presented  to  Presbytery  October  5,  1891),  was 
a  Committee  of  Prosecution  under  Section  11  of  the  Re¬ 
vised  Book  of  Discipline. 

2.  That  this  Committee  was  in  the  house  on  the  day  on 
which  the  citation  was  returnable  (November  4,  1891,  as 
aforesaid),  as  an  original  party . 

3.  That  the  Committee,  as  an  original  party,  was  virtu¬ 
ally  and  practically  independent  of  the  Presbytery. 

Against  this  action  complaint  is  made  for  the  following 
reasons : — 

1.  The  records  of  Presbytery  do  not  show  that  the  Com¬ 
mittee  was  appointed  as  a  Committee  of  Prosecution  under 
Section  11  of  the  Revised  Book  of  Discipline. 

2.  Section  10  of  the  Revised  Book  of  Discipline  de¬ 
clares  that  “  when  the  prosecution  is  initiated  by  a  judi¬ 
catory,  the  Presbyterian  Church  in  the  United  States  of 
America  shall  be  the  prosecutor,  an  original  party.”  But 
the  Presbyterian  Church  in  the  United  States  of  America 
was  represented  in  the  house  by  the  Presbytery  of  New 
York  itself,  and  not  by  a  Committee  of  the  Presbytery. 

3.  Every  Committee  appointed  by  Presbytery  is  subject 
to  the  control  of  Presbytery;  otherwise  the  creature  is 
greater  than  the  body  creating  it,  the  sovereignty  of  Pres¬ 
bytery  over  its  members,  its  Committees,  and  all  the  inter- 


258 


ests  committed  to  it  by  the  laws  of  the  Church  aie 
seriously  impaired,  and  an  undue  power  is  placed  in  the 
hands  of  a  few  persons. 

4.  It  was,  therefore,  competent  for  the  Presbytery  to 
discharge  the  Committee  on  dismissing  the  case  against 
Dr.  Briggs.  But  a  motion  to  this  effect  was  ruled  out  of 
order  by  the  Moderator,  on  the  ground  of  the  Presbytery’s 
action  in  sustaining  him  as  cited  above  (see  also  Complaint 

II). 

5.  The  Committee  being  a  creature  of  Presbytery,  had 
no  right  to  appeal  from  the  decision  of  Presbytery  in  vot¬ 
ing  by  a  large  majority  (94  to  39)  to  dismiss  the  aforesaid 
case.  Yet  this,  the  action  of  Presbytery  in  sustaining 
the  ruling  of  the  Moderator,  as  above,  permitted  them  to 

do. 

6.  By  this  appeal  of  the  Committee,  the  Presbytery  is 
placed  in  the  absurd  position  of  being  compelled  to  defend 
its  own  action  in  dismissing  a  case — not  against  the  com¬ 
plaint  of  any  individual,  nor  against  the  appeal  of  one  who 
has  suffered  personal  detriment  by  a  judicial  decision,  but 
against  a  Committee  which  was  appointed  by,  and  derives 
all  its  authority  from,  the  very  body  against  whose  judg¬ 
ment  it  now  proposes  to  maintain  its  opinion.  This  an¬ 
omalous  situation  results  from  the  action  of  the  Presby¬ 
tery  in  sustaining  the  Moderator,  as  above. 

For  these  reasons,  notice  of  Complaint  is  hereby  given  to 
the  Stated  Clerk  of  the  Presbytery  of  New  York,  this 
thirteenth  day  of  November,  1891,  being  less  than  ten 
days  after  the  action  complained  of. 

(Signed)  Francis  Brown, 

In  behalf  of  himself  and  others. 


259 


Notice  of  Complaint  (II.) 

Notice  of  Complaint  to  be  made  before  the  higher  judi 
catory  by  the  undersigned  and  others  agreeing  with  him, 
is  hereby  filed,  in  accordance  with  Sections  83  and  84  of 
the  Revised  Book  of  Discipline,  against  the  action  of  the 
Presbytery  of  New  York,  November  4,  1891,  in  refusing, 
by  a  vote  of  9  to  8,  to  enter  upon  the  records  of  Presbytery 
the  fact  that  a  motion  was  made  to  discharge  the  Committee 
appointed  (in  May,  1891)  to  prepare  charges  against  Dr. 
Briggs,  after  the  Presbytery  had  voted,  94  to  39,  to  dismiss 
the  case ;  which  motion  was  ruled  out  of  order  by  the 
Moderator  on  the  ground  of  the  action  of  Presbytery  on  the 
same  day  in  sustaining  his  rulings  as  to  the  function  and 
rights  of  the  Committee  (see  Complaint  I.). 

The  reason  for  this  Complaint  is  the  following : — 

It  was  important  as  a  basis  for  Complaint  I.,  and  in 
order  to  bring  all  the  facts  before  the  higher  judicatory  for 
review,  that  it  should  appear  on  the  records  of  Presbytery 
that  a  motion  was  made,  as  above,  and  ruled  out  of  order. 

Notice  of  Complaint  is  accordingly  given  to  the  Stated 
Clerk  of  the  Presbytery  of  New  York,  this  thirteenth  day 
of  November,  1891,  being  less  than  ten  days  after  the 
action  complained  of. 

(Signed)  Francis  Brown, 

In  behalf  of  himself  and  others. 


The  Committee  appointed  to  answer  the  protest  of  Rev. 
Dr.  Henry  Van  Dyke  report  as  follows : 

£<  The  peculiarity  of  the  subject  matter,  and  the  con¬ 
nected  points  involved  in  the  ruling  of  the  Moderator, 
under  which  the  protest  was  entered,  seem  to  us  to  justify 
some  enlargement  of  the  scope  of  our  inquiries,  in  order 
to  greater  definiteness  in  the  answer. 


260 


We  recite  the  ruling,  viz.  :  “  That  the  Committee  was 
properly  a  Committee  of  Prosecution,  in  view  of  the  pre¬ 
vious  action  of  the  Presbytery,  as  recorded ;  that  it  repre¬ 
sented  the  Presbyterian  Church  in  the  United  States  of 
America ;  that  it  was  in  the  house  as  an  ‘  original  party  ’ 
in  the  case  under  provision  of  Section  10th  of  the  Book  of 
Discipline,  and  is  now  virtually  independent  of  the  Pres¬ 
bytery.  5  ’ 

We  recite  the  protest  of  Dr.  Van  Dyke,  viz.  :  “  In 

accordance  with  the  Book  of  Discipline,  Section  105,  I 
protest  against  the  ruling  of  the  Moderator  in  the  case  of 
C.  A.  Briggs,  that  the  Committee,  consisting  of  G.  W.  F. 
Birch,  J.  J.  Lampe,  B.  F.  Sample,  J.  J.  McCook  and  John 
J.  Stevenson,  is  an  original  party  in  the  case,  and,  there¬ 
fore,  entitled  to  be  heard  first  under  Pule  22,  Book  of  Dis¬ 
cipline,  as  an  erroneous  decision,  on  the  following  grounds, 
viz.  : 

1st.  In  a  case  arising  under  Common  Fame  the  Prosecut¬ 
ing  Committee  is  not  an  Original  Party.  See  Minutes  of 
General  Assembly  (0.  S.),  1859,  page  563. 

2d.  This  Committee  has  not  been  appointed  “to  con¬ 
duct  the  prosecution  in  all  its  stages  in  whatever  judica¬ 
tory,  5  5  and  there  is  no  record  of  the  Presbytery  to  show 
such  appointment. 

The  Book  of  Discipline  makes  no  provision  for  a  protest 
against  the  ruling  of  a  Moderator.  Section  105  concerns 
only  the  spirit  of  a  protest  against,  not  the  Moderator,  but 
“  the  majority .”  Section  103,  describing  the  nature  of  a 
“  Dissent;”  or,  as  in  104,  a  “  Protest”  (which  is  merely  a 
“  more  formal  declaration  ”),  states  :  “  It  is  a  declaration 
of  one  or  more  members  of  a  minority  expressing  disagree¬ 
ment  with  a  decision  of  the  majority.”  A  member  may 
appeal  to  the  house  against  the  ruling  of  the  Moderator. 
If  the  house  sustain  the  ruling,  the  only  further  action  of 


I 


261 

the  dissentient  must  be  against  the  majority  or  against  the 
judicatory  as  represented  by  the  vote  of  the  majority. 
The  protest  of  Dr.  Van  Dyke  is,  therefore,  defective  in 
this  essential  particular,  and  might  be  thrown  out  upon 
that  ground.  We  prefer,  however,  to  waive  this  point 
and  answer  fully  the  questions  at  issue. 

The  Committee  beg  leave  to  offer  a  preliminary  state¬ 
ment  of  certain  principles  which  they  deem  rational  and 
fundamental  to  the  whole  subject. 

A  party  in  a  judicial  proceeding  is  necessarily,  as 
the  word  indicates,  a  person  or  combination  of  persons 
anaved  on  one  side  or  the  other  of  the  case ;  taking  the 
part  in  it  which  belongs  to  that  side.  Impartiality  is  un¬ 
avoidably  excluded  from  its  position,  however  candid  may 
be  the  temper  cherished.  A  party  accused  must  have  a 
party  accusing,  each  maintaining  its  side.  A  process  con¬ 
ducted  before  a  Presbytery  must,  therefore,  have  its  two 
original  parties.  But  as  the  Presbytery  becomes  the 
court  to  consider,  try  and  decide  the  case,  it  cannot  be  one 
of  those  parties.  Its  position  in  the  trial  must  be  that  of 
strict  impartiality. 

b  In  a  case  originating  in  personal  offence,  the  first  ori¬ 
ginal  party  is  the  person  aggrieved  and  bringing  the 
charge.  In  a  case  where  no  individual  brings  the  charge 
(though  one  or  more  may  call  attention  to  an  alleged  public 
offence),  the  first  party  is  assumed  to  be,  and  by  our  Disci¬ 
pline  declared  to  be,  the  Church  at  large  (or  by  ecclesiastical 
limitation  the  Presbyterian  Church  of  the  United  States 
of  America),  which  is  aggrieved  by  the  public  offence 
alleged  against  one  of  its  members,  who  is  the  second 
party .  But,  as  it  is  impossible  for  the  Presbyterian  Church 
in  the  United  States  to  perform  its  functions  directly,  it 
■must  commission  some  individuals  to  represent  it.  As  it 
is  equally  impossible  for  the  whole  Church  to  select  and 
commission  such  individuals,  the  duty  of  so  doing  is 


262 


properly  relegated  to  the  particular  Presbytery  within 
whose  bounds  the  offence  was  alleged  to  be  committed, 
which  designates  and  elects  them  as  a  Committee  of  Pros¬ 
ecution  in  the  name,  not  of  the  Presbytery,  but  of  the 
Church  at  large,  and  representing  not  the  Presbytery,  but 
the  Church  at  large,  and  sets  them  aside  for  that  definite 
purpose.  For  the  time  being,  therefore,  the  Committee  so 
appointed  is  separate  from  the  Presbytery  and  independent 
of  it  in  the  matter  in  hand,  except  as  to  the  orderly 
arrangements  and  processes  of  trial ;  responsible  no  longer 
to  the  Presbytery,  but  to  the  Church  at  large,  in  whose 
name  and  behalf  it  must  conduct  the  case.  It  is  in  this 
respect  unlike  any  other  committee  appointed  by  the  body ; 
is  not  in  any  proper  sense  the  ‘  6  creature  5  ’  of  the  Presby¬ 
tery,  but  the  creature  of  the  Presbyterian  Church  in  the 
United  States ;  only  designated  as  to  its  component  mem¬ 
bership  by  the  Presbytery  which,  in  such  designation  or 
appointment,  is  acting  as  the  agent  of  the  larger  body ; 
and  it  is  not  subject  to  the  will  of  the  Presbytery  except 
for  the  maintenance  of  constitutional  order,  so  long  as  the 
case  continues.  It  takes  the  place  of  and  becomes,  both 
dejurewaiide  facto ,  an  “  original  party.”  The  Presby¬ 
tery  is  “  the  judicatory  initiating  the  prosecution  (accord¬ 
ing  to  Section  10th),  not  the  “  prosecutors,”  and  thence¬ 
forth  separates  itself  from  the  prosecution  to  remain  only 
the  court  before  which  the  two  original  parties  were  to 
submit  their  cause.  The  Presbytery  is  competent  to  decide 
the  case  temporarily  by  a  verdict,  though  still  subject  to 
appeal  by  either  party ;  and  competent,  also,  to  decide  it 
temporarily  by  dismissal,  though  still  subject  to  a  demand 
from  either  party  for  a  fair  and  full  representation  of  its 
claims  before  dismissal  and  to  an  appeal  after  dismissal. 
Such  verdict  or  dismissal  bears  only  upon  the  Presbytery’s 
own  further  cognizance  of  the  case.  When  it  has  initiated 
the  prosecution,  the  committee  so  appointed  has,  by  the 


263 


express  terms  of  its  appointment,  authority  to  “  conduct 
the  prosecution  in  all  its  stages,  in  whatever  judicatory, 
until  the  final  issue  be  reached  ”  (Section  11th),  and  is  not 
subject  to  discharge  until  that  issue  be  reached.  Then  the 
Presbytery,  its  functions  as  a  court  having  ceased  and  act¬ 
ing  again  as  the  agent  of  the  Presbyterian  Church  in  the 
United  States,  discharges  the  committee. 

The  question  now  occurs  whether  these  principles  apply 
to  the  matter  in  hand ;  whether  the  Moderator  was  justified 
in  so  applying  them  in  his  ruling.  Against  this  the  pro¬ 
test  is  made,  and  the  present  Committee  is  directed  to 
answer  under  the  two  items  into  which  it  is  divided. 

1st.  uIn  a  case  arising  under  Common  Fame  the  Pros¬ 
ecuting  Committee  is  not  an  original  party.  See  Minutes 
of  General  Assembly  (O.  S.),  1859,  page  563,  Moore’s 
Digest.  ’  ’ 

Answer  1.  The  Revised  Book  of  Discipline  by  which  the 
Presbytery  must  be  governed,  does  not  recognize  Common 
Fame.  The  phrase  nowhere  occurs.  The  statement  of  the 
old  book  “  Common  Fame  is  the  Accuser,”  is  dropped, 
perhaps  because  of  its  vagueness,  and  the  difficulty  of 
reducing  such  a  personification  to  the  dimensions  of  an 
actual  person,  and  we  are  left  only  to  the  more  general 
form.  “  Process  shall  not  be  commenced  unless  a  Judica¬ 
tory  finds  it  necessary  to  investigate  the  alleged  offence.” 
Section  6. — The  natural  implication  is  that  some  member 
has  openly  made  such  an  allegation,  or  brought  it  to  the 
notice  of  the  body,  and  the  Judicatory  having,  like  a 
Grand  Jury,  received  it  and  found  it  necessary  to  investi¬ 
gate  the  offence,  commences  a  process. 

In  order  to  do  so  it  “  initiates  a  prosecution,”  according 
to  Section  11th,  by  appointing  a  committee  to  conduct  it. 
The  committee  so  appointed  and  for  that  purpose  becomes, 
as  we  have  shown,  the  prosecutor,  and  the  only  possible 


264 


“  original  party,  ”  except  the  accused,  as  fully  as  in 
any  case  of  personal  offence  where  an  individual  has 
undertaken  to  make  the  charge,  and  becomes  thereby  the 
original  party  on  that  side. 

As  sustaining  these  statements  we  notice  in  Moore’s 
Digest,  1886,  the  following  foot-note:  “Common  Fame, 
since  the  adoption  of  the  Devised  Book  of  Discipline,  is  no 
longer  a  ground  of  Process.”  Chap.  II.,  Section  8. 

II. — In  the  absence  of  any  legislation  upon  the  subject 
by  the  Book,  it  may  be  supposed  that  the  new  ‘  ‘  Buies  for 
Judicatories  ”  should  be  our  guide.  These  rules,  however, 
are  not  mandatory  upon  the  judicatories,  but  merely 
recommended  for  adoption  by  them.  Moreover,  they  were 
not  adopted  by  this  Presbytery  until  the  October  Session, 
and  were  not  in  use  by  us. 

Therefore,  when  the  process  was  initiated — but  waiving 
this  point,  and  referring  to  Buie  42,  we  find  it  merely  re¬ 
affirming  (though  it  has  no  right  to  do  so)  the  conditions 
recognized  under  the  old  form,  viz.:  “  In  case  of 
process  under  general  rumor,  there  may  be  a  committee 
appointed  (if  convenient)  who  shall  be  the  Committee  of 
Prosecution,  and  who  shall  conduct  the  whole  course  on 
the  part  of  the  prosecution.”  Nothing  is  here  declared  or 
intimated  in  regard  to  the  status  of  such  a  committee,  as 
an  original  party,  and  the  inference  is  legitimate  that  no 
distinction  was  intended  in  that  respect  between  a  prose¬ 
cuting  committee  and  a  prosecuting  individual  or  ua 
particular  accuser,  ’  ’  as  he  is  termed  in  the  rule,  that  if  the 
latter  were  of  necessity  an  original  party,  so  also  the  former 
as  acting  instead  of  one,  must  be.  Otherwise,  indeed,  there 
is  and  can  be,  in  a  case  so  initiated  “  under  general 
rumor,”  no  original  party  on  that  side;  the  Presbytery 
itself,  as  a  court,  being  unavoidably  estopped  (barred  by 
its  own  act)  from  assuming  that  position. 


265 


The  protest,  however,  cites,  in  confirmation,  the  min¬ 
utes  of  the  General  Assembly,  1859,  page  563  of  the 
Digest,  which  is  as  follows :  In  an  appeal  of  Alex.  Frazer 
against  the  Synod  of  Buffalo.  “The  original  parties 
being  called  for,  the  Moderator  decided  that  the  case 
having  arisen  without  an  individual  prosecutor,  there  was 
but  one  original  party  before  the  Court  (meaning  evidently 
the  accused  appealing),  who  was  now  to  be  heard  by  A. 
G-.  Hall  and  J.  Bliss,  representing  him.”  Upon  this  we 
remark,  1st.  That  the  case  mentioned  occurred  long  prior 
to  the  Book  of  Discipline,  under  which  we  are  now  acting. 
The  provision  of  Section  10th  that  “the  Presbyterian 
Church  of  the  United  States  shall  be  the  prosecutor 
and  an  original  party”  had  not  then  been  made,  and 
a  Committee  to  conduct  the  piosecution  in  all  its 
stages,  as  representing  the  Presbyterian  Church  of  the 
United  States  was,  of  course,  unknown,  otherwise  such  a 
decision  could  not  have  been  given.  The  cases  are  not 
analogous.  If,  however,  any  weight  be  still  attached  to 
the  precedent,  we  remark,  2d.  That  on  the  same  page  of 
the  Digest,  under  the  minutes  of  1861,  we  find  the  follow- 
ing,  which  seems  to  have  escaped  the  notice  of  the  protest- 
ant:  In  the  case  of  complaint  of  the  Presbytery  of 
Passaic  against  the  Synod  of  New  York,  “  Resolved,  that 
the  case  be  returned  to  the  Synod,  because  it  appears  from 
the  record  of  the  Synod,  that  the  original  parties  in  the 
case  were  never  heard  by  them ;  the  original  parties  in 
the  judgment  of  the  Assembly  being  Mr.  Wm.  B.  Gould 
and  the  committee  prosecuting  for  Common  Fame”  This, 
be  it  observed,  is  not  a  mere  decision  by  the  Moderator, 
but  a  judgment  of  the  Assembly ?  ’  in  its  combined 
wisdom,  and,  we  submit,  is  of  more  weight,  and  would  be 
of  more  binding  force  (if,  in  the  changed  conditions,  either 
were  binding — which  it  is  not)  than  the  previous  mere 
official  decision.  It  is  proper  to  add,  however,  that  the 


266 


quoting  of  decisions  from  the  Old  or  New  School  branches 
of  the  Church  at  that  period  is  in  itself  considered  of  no 
avail  as  bearing  upon  more  recent  issues.  The  Concurrent 
Declaration  of  both  Assemblies  in  1869  is  that  “  No  rule  or 
precedent  which  does  not  stand  approved  by  both  bodies 
should  be  of  any  authority  until  re-established  in  the  united 
body.”  These  decisions  have  not  been  so  re-established — 
as,  indeed,  would  be  impossible  since  ‘  ‘  Common  Fame 5  ’ 
is  no  longer  recognized  as  a  ground  for  charges. 

The  Committee  find,  therefore,  no  sufficient  ground  for 
the  1st  item  of  the  protest. 

The  2d  item  is  that  “  This  Committee  has  not  been 
appointed  c  to  conduct  the  prosecution  in  all  its  stages,  in 
whatever  judicatory,’  and  there  is  no  record  of  the  Presby¬ 
tery  to  show  such  appointment.” 

Answer.  It  is  true  that  the  language  in  quotation 
marks,  ‘  ‘  To  conduct  the  prosecution  in  all  its  stages,  in 
whatever  judicatory,”  is  not  found  upon  the  records.  The 
proper  question  is  whether  the  fact  of  its  appointment  to 
a  position  which  of  necessity  involves  this  prerogative  is 
not  found  there.  The  Book  does  not  require  that  the 
lahguage  shall  be  used,  if  the  fact  and  the  intent  are 
evident. 

N o  other  6  ‘  committee  to  prosecute  5  ’  is  recognized  in 
the  Book  except  such  as  is  provided  by  Section  11th.  It  is 
there  mentioned  in  a  single  connected  sentence,  which  we 
have  no  right  to  break,  either  in  intent  or  application.  It 
is  simply  and  positively  ‘  ‘  a  committee  to  conduct  the 
prosecution  in  all  its  stages  to  whatever  judicatory,  until 
the  final  issue  be  reached,”  and  the  remainder  of  the  sec¬ 
tion  exhibits  it  as  appearing  before  the  “  Appellate  Judi¬ 
catory,  5  5  independently ,  controlling  even  the  action  of  that 
body  in  regard  to  any  assistance  given  it,  which  can  be 
only  upon  “its  (the  committee’s)  desire  and  nomina¬ 
tion.”  This  is  the  large  responsibility  entrusted  to  it  by 


267 


“  the  Presbyterian  Church  in  the  United  States,”  at  the 
first  moment  of  appointment,  which  neither  the  committee 
nor  the  Presbytery  can  evade.  The  law  does  not  read  “  to 
conduct  in  all  its  stages,  if  the  Presbytery  shall  so  order, ’  ’ 
but,  in  whatever  way  the  case  may  reach  a  second  or  third 
judicatory,  the  committee  shall  be  there  to  conduct  it, 
whether  the  Presbytery  shall  consent  or  not.  Indeed,  the 
Presbytery  has  no  consent  either  to  give  or  to  withhold. 
It  has  become  a  court,  and  a  court  does  not  appeal  to  a 
higher  court — a  prosecutor  or  a  defendant  appeals,  and  no 
other  party  can  appeal.  If  the  prosecuting  committee  is 
not  there  to  do  its  part  no  one  else  can  take  its  place,  and 
the  prosecution  is  absolutely  without  representation.  This 
seems  to  have  been  precisely  the  difficulty  in  the  case 
against  the  Synod  of  Buffalo.  There  having  been  “  no 
individual  prosecutor’  ’  at  the  outset,  and  no  committee  of 
prosecution  presenting  itself  at  the  Assembly,  there  was, 
of  course,  but  one  original  party,  the  defendant,  before 
the  highest  court  (whatever  may  have  been  before  the 
lowest  court),  and  the  case  “  went  by  default,”  if  we  may 
be  permitted  to  use  the  phrase  on  the  side  opposite  to  that 
to  which  it  is  usually  technically  applied.  The  entire  action 
of  the  Presbytery,  taken  in  connection  with  the  object 
proposed,  confirms  the  opinion  that  it  was  the  design 
to  appoint  just  such  a  committee,  because  it  could 
appoint  no  other,  whatever  may  have  been  the  failure 
of  individual  members  to  apprehend  the  reach  of  their 
action.  The  body  was  entering  upon  a  judicial  pro¬ 
ceeding — “the  business  assigned  for  trial,”  as  the 
Moderator  solemnly  announced.  It  was  from  the  outset 
conducted,  as  the  Moderator’s  ruling  stated,  “under  the 
power  given  by  Section  11th,”  which  expressly  assigns 
that  prerogative  to  the  Committee,  and  could  not  have 
been  conducted  under  any  other  power.  At  various  points 
in  the  proceeding  the  nature  and  object  of  the  appointment 


268 


was  indicated  and  unchallenged.  May  12th.  After  adopt¬ 
ing  the  report  of  the  preliminary  Committee  to  examine 
the  inaugural  address,  it  was  “  resolved  to  enter  at  once 
upon  the  judicial  investigation  of  the  case.”  This  accords 
perfectly  with  Section  6th,  “  a  judiciary  finds  it  necessary 
to  investigate  the  alleged  offence,”  which  is  expressly 
included  under  the  title  of  “  process  against  an  alleged 
offender,”  a  phrase  covering  the  general  matter  of  process. 
Under  this  resolution  the  records  show  that  ‘  6  a  Committee 
was  appointed  to  arrange  and  prepare  the  necessary  pro¬ 
ceedings  appropriate  to  the  case.”  May  17th.  The  records 
again  refer  to  “the  Committee  appointed  to  arrange  and 
prepare  the  necessary  proceedings  appropriate  to  the 
case,”  the  necessary  proceedings  being  the  formulating 
and  presenting  of  charges  against  Dr.  Briggs.  June  5th. 
The  Committee,  under  the  same  title,  “reported  progress.” 
Next,  the  record  of  October  6th  is,  that  “the  Committee 
of  Prosecution  ’ 5  (being  those  named  in  the  protest) 
“  appointed  in  compliance  with  Sec.  11  of  the  Book  of 
Discipline ,”  reported  such  charges.  The  report  was 
accepted,  unchallenged — the  Presbytery,  by  that  accept¬ 
ance,  recognizing  as  undisputed  the  title  of  the  Committee 
and  its  appointment  under  the  Section  named.  On  the 
same  day  it  is  recorded  that,  “by  agreement  between  Dr. 
Briggs  and  the  Prosecuting  Committee ,  the  4th  day  of 
Nov.,  at  10  o’clock,  be  fixed  as  the  day  on  which  the 
citation  is  returnable,”  and  the  citation  so  drawn  was  duly 
presented  to  and  accepted  by  Dr.  Briggs.  This  agreement 
and  acceptance  by  both  parties  in  the  case  still  further 
settled  the  title,  status  and  object  of  the  Committee,  as 
acknowledged  by  both,  and  effectually  disposes  of  any 
subsequent  claims  to  the  contrary.  At  the  close  of  that 
session  the  minutes  were  approved  without  demur  on  that 
account;  the  Presbytery  thus  again  unanimously  acknowl¬ 
edging  and  making  itself  responsible  for  both  the  general 


269 


and  special  character  of  the  committee,  the  accused  party 
and  all  concerned  for  him  also  being  responsible  for  the 
same  by  their  failure  to  object.  Moreover,  on  the  22d  of 
Oct.,  the  Synod  of  New  York  examined  and  approved  all 
the  records  of  the  Presbytery  which  we  have  cited  previous 
to  Nov.  4th,  thus  indicating  its  acceptance  and  approval 
of  and  making  itself  to  a  degree  responsible  for  the  legal 
appointment  and  legal  action  of  the  Committee  as  a  Com¬ 
mittee  of  Prosecution  under  Section  11.  We  once  more 
remind  the  members  of  the  positive  requirement  of  the 
Book  in  that  section — which  is  that  ‘  ‘  when  the  prosecu¬ 
tion  is  initiated  by  a  judicatory  it  shall  appoint  one  or 
more  of  its  own  members  a  Committee  to  conduct  the 
prosecution  in  all  its  stages,  in  whatever  judicatory,  until 
the  final  issue  be  reached, 5  5  and  we  affirm  that  the  minutes 
of  the  Presbytery  do  positively  and  fully  show  such  an 
appointment  in  strict  conformity  to  the  requirement. 

We  find,  therefore,  no  sufficient  ground  for  the  2d  item 
of  the  protest,  and  consider  the  protest,  as  a  whole,  an 
inadequate  objection  to  the  ruling  of  the  Moderator,  and 
the  decision  of  the  majority  sustaining  that  ruling. 

Respectfully  offered,  to  be  entered  on  the  records  of  the 
Presbytery  as  the  answer  of  the  majority.” 

(  H.  B.  Elliot. 

(Signed)  <  Chas  A.  Stoddard. 

(  R.  Beggs. 

The  above  was  presented  and  entered  upon  the  records 
at  the  meeting  of  Presbytery,  December  14th,  1891. 


270 


Presbytery  of  New  York. 

153  East  78th  Street, 

April  11,  1892. 

I  have  examined  the  above  printed  Record  in  the  case 
of  the  Presbyterian  Church  in  the  United  States  of 
America  against  the  Rev.  Charles  A.  Briggs,  D.D.,  includ¬ 
ing  the  appeal  to  the  General  Assembly,  and  all  papers 
pertaining  to  the  case,  and  hereby  authenticate  the  same 
as  in  entire  agreement  with  the  records  of  this  Presbytery. 

S.  D.  Alexander, 

Stated  Clerk. 


271 


184  Willis  Avenue, 

New  York,  March  7th,  1892. 

Rev.  Charles  A.  Briggs,  B.B., 

120  West  93d  Street, 

New  York  City. 

Bear  Br.  Briggs, 

In  behalf  of  the  Committee,  I  beg  to  inform  you,  that 
the  appeal  to  the  General  Assembly,  taken  by  the  Prose¬ 
cuting  Committee,  from  the  final  judgment  of  the  Presby¬ 
tery  of  New  York,  in  the  matter  of  the  Presbyterian 
Church  in  the  United  States  of  America  against  the  Rev. 
Charles  A.  Briggs,  B.B.,  will  be  presented  and  brought  on 
for  hearing  during  the  sessions  of  the  next  General  Assem- 
bly,  which  will  be  held  at  the  City  of  Portland,  Oregon,  on 
Thursday,  the  19th  day  of  May,  1892,  and  following  days. 

This  notice  is  not  required  by  the  Book  of  Biscipline, 
nor  by  precedent,  and  is  sent  simply  as  a  matter  of 
courtesy,  and  out  of  abundant  caution,  to  prevent  the 
possibility  of  any  misunderstanding. 

Very  respectfully  yours, 

George  W.  F.  Birch, 

Chairman. 


272 


120  West  Ninety-Third  Street. 

Rev.  Geo.  W.  F.  Birch,  D.D. 

Dear  Sir: 

Dr.  Briggs  desires  to  acknowledge  the  receipt  of  your 
communication  of  March  seventh,  and  thanks  you  for  the 
courtesy. 


March  the  eighth. 


Very  truly, 

J.  Y.  Briggs. 


' 


. 


llli 


wmm 


